project cycle management handbook - wordpress.comeuropean commission – europeaid project cycle...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EuropeAid Co-operation Office General Affairs Evaluation

PPrroojjeecctt CCyyccllee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

HHaannddbbooookk

a

March 2002 Version 2.0

Prepared by: PARTICIP GmbH Hildastrasse 66

D-79102 Freiburg, Germany Phone: ++49-761-790740 Fax: ++49-761-7907490

E-mail: [email protected] http://www.particip.com

In collaboration with FTP International Ltd., FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland

Prospect C&S, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium South Research, B-3010 Kessel-Lo, Belgium

The second version of the PCM handbook has been produced by the Evaluation Unit of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office. It has benefited from the assistance of PARTICIP GmbH.

European Commission – EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook

Project Cycle Management Handbook

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 1.1. Contents .....................................................................................................................1 1.2. Target Groups ............................................................................................................1 1.3. How to Use the Handbook? .......................................................................................1

2. PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW ......................................................3 2.1. The Project Cycle and Key PCM Principles ...............................................................3 2.2. The Basic Format or Structure of Project and Programme Documents .....................5 2.3. Programming..............................................................................................................6

2.3.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................6 2.3.2. The Programming Process: An Overview.......................................................6 2.3.3. Fundamental Principles of Programming........................................................8 2.3.4. Checking the Quality of an Indicative Programme........................................10

2.4. Identification .............................................................................................................10 2.4.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................10 2.4.2. Expected Outcomes of Identification ............................................................10 2.4.3. Major Tasks ..................................................................................................11 2.4.4. Project Identification Criteria.........................................................................12

2.5. Appraisal ..................................................................................................................14 2.5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................14 2.5.2. Expected Outcomes of Appraisal .................................................................15 2.5.3. Major Tasks ..................................................................................................16 2.5.4. Project Appraisal Criteria ..............................................................................16

2.6. Financing..................................................................................................................19 2.6.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................19 2.6.2. Major Tasks and Expected Outcomes of Financing .....................................19 2.6.3. Project Financing Criteria .............................................................................19

2.7. Implementation, Including Monitoring and Reporting ...............................................21 2.7.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................21 2.7.2. Expected Outcomes of Implementation........................................................21 2.7.3. Major Tasks to Be Managed at EC Level/Partner Country Level .................21 2.7.4. Implementation and Monitoring at Project Level: An Overview ....................22

2.7.4.1. What is Monitoring? ........................................................................25 2.7.4.2. Reporting on Progress ....................................................................25

2.7.5. Monitoring of Implementation at EC and Partner Country Level...................26 2.8. Evaluation.................................................................................................................27

2.8.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................27 2.8.2. Overall Responsibilities for Evaluation .........................................................27 2.8.3. Types of Evaluations ....................................................................................28 2.8.4. Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................28 2.8.5. What is the Difference Between Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit?.............29 2.8.6. Evaluation Reports: Outline and Issues to Be Considered...........................30 2.8.7. Managing the Evaluation Process: An Overview..........................................31

i


2.8.8. Evaluation Studies: Some Procedural Aspects.............................................31 3. THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH – A PROJECT DESIGN AND

MANAGEMENT TOOL....................................................................................................33 3.1. The Logical Framework Approach: An Introduction .................................................33 3.2. The Logical Framework Approach: Two Stages.......................................................34 3.3. The Analysis Stage ..................................................................................................35

3.3.1. Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................................................35 3.3.1.1. How to Proceed? ............................................................................36 3.3.1.2. Linking Stakeholder Analysis and the Subsequent Steps...............37

3.3.2. Problem Analysis ..........................................................................................37 3.3.3. Analysis of Objectives...................................................................................39 3.3.4. Analysis of Strategies ...................................................................................40

3.4. The Planning Stage..................................................................................................41 3.4.1. The Logframe Matrix.....................................................................................41

3.4.1.1. First Column: Intervention Logic .....................................................42 3.4.1.2. Second Column: Indicators.............................................................43 3.4.1.3. Third Column: Sources of Verification ............................................43 3.4.1.4. Fourth Column: Assumptions..........................................................43

3.4.2. How to Identify the Intervention Logic?.........................................................44 3.4.2.1. Using the Logical Framework to Plan Complex Interventions:

Interlocking Logframes....................................................................46 3.4.3. How to Identify Assumptions?.......................................................................49 3.4.4. Checking Quality Factors..............................................................................51

3.4.4.1. What are Quality Factors? ..............................................................51 3.4.4.2. How to Plan for Quality ...................................................................52

3.4.5. How to Identify Indicators (OVIs) and Sources of Verification (SOV)? .........54 3.4.6. How to Identify Means and Cost?.................................................................57 3.4.7. Final Quality Check of the Logframe.............................................................58 3.4.8. Using the Logical Framework to Develop Activity and Resource

Schedules .....................................................................................................59 3.4.8.1. Preparing Activity Schedules ..........................................................59 3.4.8.2. Preparing Resource Schedules ......................................................60

4. TOOLS FOR MANAGING PROJECT QUALITY.............................................................61 4.1. Using the LFA to Assess Project Proposals: An Overview.......................................61 4.2. Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals .............................................................61 4.3. The Quality Improvement Tool .................................................................................62

5. ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................65 5.1. Sector Programmes .................................................................................................65

5.1.1. How Do Sector Programmes Work?.............................................................65 5.1.2. Devising a Sector Programme: Issues to Consider ......................................66 5.1.3. The Sector Programme Cycle ......................................................................67

5.2. Developing a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) ...........................................................69 5.3. Details About Implementation...................................................................................70

5.3.1. Implementation: Three Main Periods............................................................70 5.3.1.1. The Inception Period.......................................................................70 5.3.1.2. Main Implementation Period ...........................................................70

ii


5.3.1.3. Final Period.....................................................................................70 5.3.2. Implementation: Three Major Principles .......................................................71

5.3.2.1. Planning and Re-planning: What, When and How?........................71 5.3.2.2. Overall Work Plan ...........................................................................71 5.3.2.3. Annual Work Plans .........................................................................72 5.3.2.4. Planning of Management Activities.................................................78

5.3.3. Monitoring: Some Basic Steps......................................................................79 5.3.3.1. Major Monitoring Issues: Overview and Support Material ..............79 5.3.3.2. Monitoring of Activities and Means / Resources .............................79 5.3.3.3. Monitoring of Results ......................................................................82 5.3.3.4. Monitoring of Assumptions..............................................................84 5.3.3.5. Monitoring of Impacts......................................................................86

5.3.4. Reporting on Progress: What, When and How?...........................................86 5.3.4.1. Reporting Types and Formats ........................................................90

5.4. A Checklist for Preparing an Activity Schedule ........................................................91 5.4.1. Step 1 – List Main Activities..........................................................................91 5.4.2. Step 2 – Break Activities Down into Manageable Tasks...............................91 5.4.3. Step 3 – Clarify Sequence and Dependencies .............................................91 5.4.4. Step 4 – Estimate Start-up, Duration and Completion of Activities...............91 5.4.5. Step 5 – Summarise Scheduling of Main Activities.......................................92 5.4.6. Step 6 – Define Milestones...........................................................................92 5.4.7. Step 7 – Define Expertise .............................................................................92 5.4.8. Step 8 – Allocate Tasks Among Team .........................................................92 5.4.9. Step 9 – Estimate Time Required for Team Members..................................92

5.5. Preparing Resource Schedules................................................................................96 5.5.1. A Checklist for Specifying Means and Scheduling Cost ...............................96

5.6. Glossary ...................................................................................................................98 5.7. Useful References and Sites..................................................................................104

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Project Cycle ................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Merging PCM and Logframe Approach 3 Figure 3: The Project Cycle: Main Documents and Decisions 4 Figure 4: The Integrated Approach 5 Figure 5: The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the End of Identification 11 Figure 6: The Logframe: What Should Be Defined at the End of Appraisal 15 Figure 7: Implementation: A Learning Process 22 Figure 8: Information Needs and Levels of Management 26 Figure 9: Major Principles of Evaluation 27 Figure 10: Linking Evaluation Criteria to the Logframe 29 Figure 11: Comparing Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit 29 Figure 12: The Logical Framework 33 Figure 13: The Logframe Approach 34 Figure 14: Example of a Stakeholder Analysis 37 Figure 15: Problem Analysis 38

iii


Figure 16: Analysis of Objectives 40 Figure 17: Analysis of Strategies 41 Figure 18: How to Read the Logframe 42 Figure 19: Level of Objectives 42 Figure 20: The Vertical Logic 44 Figure 21: Building the Logframe: Specifying the Intervention Logic 45 Figure 22: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component 46 Figure 23: Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide Sector Programme 48 Figure 24: Assessment of Assumptions 50 Figure 25: Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions 51 Figure 26: Building the Logframe: Planning for Quality 54 Figure 27: Indicators: An Example 55 Figure 28: Indicators and the Project Cycle 55 Figure 29: Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators and Sources of Verification 57 Figure 30: Building the Logframe: A Completed Logframe 58 Figure 31: Activity and Resource Schedules 59 Figure 32: Example of an Activity Schedule 60 Figure 33: Example of a Resource Schedule 60 Figure 34: The Role of Terms of Reference in Project Preparation 62 Figure 35: The Quality Assessment Tool 63 Figure 36: How the Quality Assessment Tool Works 64 Figure 37: The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and Major Outcomes 68 Figure 38: Developing a CSP 69 Figure 39: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule 73 Figure 40: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule 74 Figure 41: Preparing an Activity Schedule 95 Figure 42: Preparing a Resource Schedule 97

List of Tables

Table 1: Development Indicators and their Use within EC 8 Table 2: Quality Criteria for Assessment of Project Ideas 13 Table 3: Quality Criteria for Assessment of a Detailed Project Design (or Draft

Financing Proposal) 17 Table 4: Format for a Financing Proposal 20 Table 5: Approach to Documentation During Implementation 23 Table 6: Example of an Implementation Schedule 24 Table 7: Evaluation Criteria Used by the European Commission 28 Table 8: Report Outline for an Evaluation Report 30 Table 9: Terminology Used in the EC Context: Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, Target

Group(s) and Project Partners? 35 Table 10: How to Analyse Stakeholders? 36 Table 11: How to Establish a Problem Tree? 38 Table 12: How to Establish an Objective Tree? 39 Table 13: How to Do a Strategy Analysis? 41 Table 14: From Strategy Analysis to Intervention Logic 45

iv


Table 15: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component 47 Table 16: How to Identify Assumptions? 50 Table 17: How to Check for Quality? 52 Table 18: Basic Questions to be Addressed to Ensure Sustainability 53 Table 19: How to Define OVIs and to Select SOV? 56 Table 20: How to Establish Means and Cost? 57 Table 21: Draft Standard Formats for Overall and Annual Work Plans and Major

Issues to be Described 75 Table 22: Major Management Activities for Project Managers 78 Table 23: Basic Steps of Monitoring 79 Table 24: Monitoring of Activities: Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 81 Table 25: Monitoring of Results: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 83 Table 26: Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet 84 Table 27: Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet 85 Table 28: Draft Standard Formats for Project Reports 88 Table 29: Overview on Critical Path Analysis 93

v


List of Abbreviations ALA Asia and Latin America (ALA) countries AWP Annual Work Plan CSP Country Strategy Paper DAC Development Assistance Committee DG Directorate-General DG DEV Development Directorate-General DG RELEX External Relations Directorate-General EC European Commission ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office EcoFin Analysis Economic and Financial Analysis EDF European Development Fund EU European Union EuropeAid EuropeAid Co-operation Office FP Financing Proposal GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit mbH

(German Agency for Technical Co-operation) HQ EC Headquarters in Brussels IADB Inter-American Development Bank IMF International Monetary Fund LF Logical Framework LFA Logical Framework Approach M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MED Mediterranean (MED) countries NIP National Indicative Programme OFS Order For Service OAS Overall Activity Schedule OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OO Overall Objectives OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator OWP Overall Work Plan PCM Project Cycle Management PIS Project Identification Sheet PP Project Purpose PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper SOV Source of Verification TOR Terms of Reference UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDP/GEF Global Environmental Facility

vi


1. INTRODUCTION This handbook complements the PCM manual1 published in March 2001. While the manual spells out the PCM principles, the handbook provides hands-on practical advice on the phases of the cycle. Sector programmes and sector-wide approaches (SWAP) are also considered in this handbook, but the handbook’s main focus is on project and programme cycle management. It is thus neither a handbook on SWAP for e.g. health or education, nor a handbook on budget support programmes which are under preparation by the competent unit within the EC. This handbook is neither a procedures manual nor does it address policy issues par-ticular to the RELEX DGs. It presents PCM principles. As there are differences be-tween EC aid programmes in how issues are dealt with, the practice of the PCM methods will have to be modified to suit the particular circumstances of the operat-ing environment. However, it complements the PCM manual by providing more de-tailed guidance on how to use the techniques and tools presented there.

1.1. Contents Chapter 1 introduces the handbook. Chapter 2 introduces the project cycle. It presents the phases, their key characteris-tics, the major tasks, the overall approach and the documents to be produced and improved. Chapter 3 introduces the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), explaining its role in project design with a simple project example. It explains how sustainability / quality factors can influence a project’s chances for success, and indicates the range of tools that are available to take account of these factors. It also explains how you can use the logframe matrix to develop objective-oriented Activity and Resource Sched-ules.

Where to find what?

Chapter 4 describes how to use the Logical Framework Approach to improve the quality of project documents and project design. Chapter 5 provides additional details about issues raised in chapters 2 and 3, with a special focus on important implementation aspects. It also provides a glossary and bibliographic references (Internet links).

1.2. Target Groups The handbook is addressed to all persons who want more detailed information about planning, management and evaluation of projects and programmes funded by the European Commission’s external aid programmes. Target

groups Thus, it will be useful for those who attended PCM seminars and workshops run by EuropeAid’s Evaluation Unit, and others, both inside and outside the Commission, who want to become more familiar with PCM and the Logical Framework Approach to deepen their understanding of PCM and of its application.

1.3. How to Use the Handbook? Each chapter has a brief introduction at the beginning. Those who have gone through the training should use the handbook as a reference to have a better insight of the issues raised.

1

1 Both documents are available in English, French and Spanish under http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/pcm.htm.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/pcm.htm


The following sections may be most relevant for particular types of target groups:

Group / Interest Chapter Persons interested in an overview on PCM in EC’s ex-ternal aid

2.

Persons interested in details about the Logical Frame-work Approach

3. & 5.4

Persons involved in managing and monitoring projects in the field – TA, Delegation staff, ministries

2.7, 5.3, 5.4

Persons in charge of planning, implementing and moni-toring feasibility studies – EC staff, consultants

2.5

Persons in charge of planning or implementing evalua-tion studies

2.8

What is most relevant for me?

PCM follows an evolutionary approach. Comments on contents and case studies are welcome, and should be addressed to EuropeAid’s Evaluation Unit (H/6).

2


2. PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW Throughout this handbook the word “project” refers both to a “project” – a group of activities to produce a Project Purpose in a fixed time frame – and a “programme” – a series of projects whose objectives together contribute to a common Overall Ob-jective, at sector, country or even multi-country level.

2.1. The Project Cycle and Key PCM Principles

Figure 1: The Project Cycle

The way in which projects are planned and carried out follows a sequence beginning with an agreed strategy, which leads to an idea for a specific action, oriented to-wards achieving a set of objectives, which then is formulated, implemented, and evaluated with a view to improving the strategy and further action. The project cycle provides a structure to ensure that stakeholders are consulted and relevant informa-tion is available, so that informed decisions can be made at key stages in the life of a project.

Structured & informed deci-sion-making

The generic project cycle within EC external aid programmes has six phases. In practice, the duration and importance of each phase may vary for different projects. However, within all EC programmes the cycle shares three common themes: 1. Key decisions, information requirements and

responsibilities are defined at each phase. 2. The phases in the cycle are progressive – each

phase needs to be completed for the next to be tackled with success.

3. New programming draws on evaluation to build exptional learning process.

Aid co-operation and partnership programmes with non-complex processes that require the active support of madecision-making and implementation process; the methmanaging, evaluating projects is the Logical Frameworsuring that the stakeholders support the decisions, andrelevant and sufficient information.

Figure 2: Merging PCM and Logframe

Merging PCM and Logframe Project Cycle Management

Defines different phases in the project life with well-defined management activities and decision making procedures

Logframe A methodology fmanaging and eprogrammes antools to enhanceand transparencorientation towa

The decision making and implementation process defined by the organisation

Project Cycle Management Logframe A

Project manamethods and

3

a

erience as part of the institu-

member states involve often ny parties. PCM reflects the

odology applied for planning, k Approach. PCM helps en- that decisions are based on

Approach

ApproachApproachor planning, valuating d projects, using participation y and to improve rds objectives

pproach

gement tools


PCM tries to ensure that: 1. projects respect and contribute to overarching policy objectives of the EC such

as respect of human rights, poverty alleviation and to cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, protection of the environment (relevance to and compatibility with theses issues in the broad sense);

What does PCM aim at? 2. projects are relevant to an agreed strategy and to the real problems of target

groups / beneficiaries; 3. projects are feasible, meaning that objectives can be realistically achieved within

the constraints of the operating environment and the capabilities of the imple-menting agencies;

4. benefits generated by projects are sustainable. For that purpose, PCM 1. uses the Logical Framework Approach to analyse the problems, work out suit-

able solutions – i.e. project design, and successfully implement them. How to achieve?

2. requires the production of good-quality key document(s) in each phase, to en-sure structured and well-informed decision-making (integrated approach).

3. requires consulting and involving key stakeholders as much as possible. 4. puts emphasis on a clear formulation and focus on one Project Purpose, in

terms of sustainable benefits for the intended target group(s). 5. incorporates key quality issues into the design from the beginning. The focus of EC co-operation will be more and more on sector programmes, i.e. supporting a specific sector through the support to the sector policy, its develop-ment, if required, and its implementation. Both the phases of the cycle and the basic principle apply to sector programmes. Chapter 5.1 provides more details about the sector programme cycle. The following figure shows the major decisions to be taken and documents to be produced during the life of a project.

Figure 3: The Project Cycle: Main Documents and Decisions

Decision how to use results in future programming

Draft Draft Financing Financing ProposalProposal

Evaluation Evaluation studystudy

Decision to continue as planned or to re-orient project (mid-term evaluation)

Decision to fund

The Project Cycle: Major Documents and Decisions

Financing Financing ProposalProposal

Financing Financing AgreementAgreement

Priority areas, sectors, timetable

Country Country Strategy PaperStrategy Paper

Decision whether to draw up a formal financing proposal

PrePre--feasibility feasibility studystudy

Feasibility Feasibility studystudy

Decision about the need for extension

Progress and Progress and Monitoring Monitoring ReportsReports

a

Project Project Identification Identification SheetSheet

Decision which options to study further

4


2.2. The Basic Format or Structure of Project and Programme Documents A basic ‘format’ is applied for all documents to be produced during the project cycle. It follows the core logic of the Logical Framework Approach.

1. Summary 2. Background: Overall EC and Government policy objectives, and links with the

Commission’s country programme or strategy, commitment of Government to over-arching policy objectives of the EC such as respect of human rights

3. Sectoral and problem analysis, including stakeholder analysis and their potentials 4. Project / programme description, objectives, and the strategy to attain them

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

Including lessons from past experience, and linkage with other donors’ activities Description of the intervention (objectives, and strategy to reach them, including Project Purpose, Results and Activities and main Indicators)

5. Assumptions, Risks 6. Implementation arrangements

Physical and non-physical means Organisation and implementation procedures Timetable (work plan) Estimated cost and financing plan Special conditions and accompanying measures by Government / partners Monitoring and Evaluation

7. Quality factors Participation and ownership by beneficiaries Policy support Appropriate technology Socio-cultural aspects Gender equality Environmental protection Institutional and management capacities Financial and economic viability

Annex: Logframe (completed or outline, depending on the phase)

Figure 4: The Integrated Approach

The Integrated ApproachStandardised documentation+Linked

objectives

Basic Format1. Summary2. Background3. Sectoral and problem analysis4. Project/programme description5. Assumptions, risks and flexibility6. Implementation arrangements7. Quality factorsAnnex: Logframe

Feasibility studies

Financing proposals

Progress reports

Evaluation reports

550017504250750400

11003100

Budget

550017504250750400

11003100

Budget

SalariesAllowancesVehicle Op.

Office Tel/FaxSeedsFertiliser

5000 55001250 17503750 4250750 750400 400850 1100

2300 3100

Budget

WorkplanWorkplan

Workplan

Results-based work plans and budgets

Logframe

National / sectoral objectivesNEAP NIP

5


The following chapters provide an overview on the different phases of the project cycle. Details about procedures and overall responsibilities between the DGs in-volved in a phase can be found in the Interservice Agreement concluded between the DG External Relations, DG Development and EuropeAid Co-operation Office2. They are not repeated in this handbook.

PCM and procedures

2.3. Programming

2.3.1. Introduction Programming is multi-annual and indicative. The work is coordinated by Commis-sion services with contributions from partner country authorities. The output is an agreed multi-annual Indicative Programme. It constitutes the “Order For Service” (OFS) sent formally from DG RELEX/DEV to EuropeAid. Any review thereof needs to be adopted. During the Programming phase, the situation at national and sectoral level is ana-lysed to identify problems, constraints and opportunities which co-operation could address. This involves a review of socio-economic indicators, and of national and donor priorities. The purpose is to identify the main objectives and sectoral priorities for co-operation, and thus to provide a relevant and feasible programming frame-work within which projects can be identified and prepared. For each of these priori-ties, strategies that take account of the lessons of past experience will be formu-lated.

Setting pri-orities

“Guidelines for the Implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers” explaining the process in detail are available on the Internet3. Overall pro-cedures and responsibilities for programming are described in the Interservice Agreement.

2.3.2. The Programming Process: An Overview The multi-annual programming documents, as defined by the different regulations, are a part of the strategic framework vis-à-vis a partner country/region. Furthermore, the standard Framework for Country Strategy Papers, which applies to EDF, ALA and MED programming documents will also be applied progressively to all other countries receiving financial assistance from the EC. Therefore, both programming and implementation are (respectively will be) managed on the basis of a single, logi-cally coherent documentation, the Country Strategy Paper (CSP). A CSP should be drafted on the basis of discussions with the partner country ensuring sufficient own-ership to facilitate a successful implementation. In this context, policy dialogue should be encouraged and should lead, if possible, to mutual understanding and consensus. A CSP shall contain a series of key elements and keep the following structure: 1. A description of the EC co-operation objectives. 2. The policy objectives of the partner country. 3. An analysis of the political, economic and social situation, including the sustain-

ability of current policies and medium-term challenges. 4. An overview of past and ongoing EC co-operation (lessons and experience),

information on programmes of EU Member States and other donors. 5. The EC response strategy, identifying a strictly limited number of intervention

sectors that is complementary to interventions by other donors.

6

2 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/reform/document/intser_06_01.pdf 3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm#menu

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/reform/document/intser_06_01.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm


6. Once the response strategy is defined, it must be translated into a National In-dicative Programme (NIP). This may be an integral part of the overall CSP document. The NIP is a management tool covering a period of several years (from 3 - 5 years depending on the applicable Regulation/Agreement). It identi-fies and defines the appropriate measures and actions for attaining the objec-tives laid down. The National Indicative Programme should fully derive from and be consistent with the preceding analysis.

Each of these points is further developed in the “Guidelines for implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers”4. The order of the compo-nents should not be altered and in total, the document should be 15 to 25 pages, without annexes. The indicative programme shall specify: • Global objectives: Programming documents set out the strategic choices for EC

co-operation, on the basis of the EU’s and the country’s priorities, making possi-ble the setting of priorities within and across sectors and by instrument;

• Financial envelopes for each co-operation area including, where appropriate, the indicative timing and size of each instalment of the Community contributions;

• Specific objectives and expected results for each co-operation area including key domains for conditionalities and main performance and a limited number of key outcome indicators (for a definition, see table below). These indicators must relate to developments that are measurable in the short/medium term. If there is a PRSP process (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper) under way, the indicators must correspond to those developed in that framework;

What needs to be specified?

• How crosscutting issues are taken into consideration (gender, environment, etc.);

• Programmes to be implemented in pursuit of these objectives and intended beneficiaries and the type of assistance to be provided (e.g. macroeconomic support, technical assistance, training, investment, supply of equipment, etc). Furthermore, project ideas may be formulated and general criteria for their reali-sation defined (such as geographical area, most suitable partners, suitable dura-tion of projects)5.

The whole programming process reflects major elements of the Logical Framework Approach, and shows that the approach is also valuable for setting co-operation ob-jectives at country or regional level.

4 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm#menu 5 For ACP countries, there is a legal obligation to give the NIP an operational content (Annex IV to the Cotonou Agreement). To the extent possible, concrete operations for which preparations are at a sufficiently advanced stage to warrant funding in the short and/or me-dium term shall therefore be included in the NIP. As the Cotonou Agreement prescribes roll-ing programming, NIPs for ACP countries should also include a projection of tentative, but nevertheless identifiable, proposals for follow-up in the subsequent years.

7

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/sec2000_1049_0_en.htm


Table 1: Development Indicators and their Use within EC Development Indicators

As a major step towards concerted international action for development, the OECD, the United Nations and the World Bank have agreed to focus on a series of key goals in partnership with developing countries. These goals have been en-dorsed by major international conferences. A system for tracking progress has also been agreed. A core set of indicators will be used - at a global level - to monitor performance and adjust development strategies as required. Within the EC, such kinds of development indicators are especially used in the framework of CSP and sector programmes. As for EC activities, the use of indica-tors meets three distinct and complementary needs, each requiring the monitoring of a separate set of indicators: 1. Measure the performance of the country’s development policies in terms of

economic growth, increasing standard of living and poverty reduction in the short, medium and long term.

2. Measure the performance of sectoral development policies. 3. Monitor the implementation and impact of EC assistance. As for all other types of indicators, it is imperative to consider the degree of meas-urability of the indicators as a key criterion when selecting which indicators to fol-low. Therefore, when defining each indicator, it is essential to pay attention to the time and cost necessary to collect the data, and the frequency with which these data could be obtained. In terms of development policy, the following terminology is applied for indicators:

Input Indica-tors

They measure the financial, administrative and regulatory resources provided by the Government and donors. It is necessary to establish a link between the re-sources used and the results achieved in order to assess the efficiency of the ac-tions carried out. E.g.: Share of the budget devoted to education expenditure, abo-lition of compulsory school uniforms

Output Indica-tors

They measure the immediate and concrete consequences of the measures taken and resources used: E.g.: Number of schools built, number of teachers trained

Outcome Indi-cators

They measure the short-term results at the level of beneficiaries. The term ‘results indicators’ is used as well. E.g.: School enrolment, percentage of girls among the children entering in first year of primary school

Impact Indica-tors

They measure the long-term consequences of the outcomes. They measure the general objectives in terms of national development and poverty reduction. E.g.: Literacy rates

Except for the term “Input indicators” which is usually not used as such within the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), this terminology complies with the LFA: • Output indicators would be located at the level of Activities, as they are direct

consequences of Activities implemented, • Outcome indicators correspond to indicators at the level of the Results in a Logi-

cal Framework, • Impact indicators are measures at the level of the Purpose and the Overall Ob-

jectives (one could distinguish between initial and long-term impact).

2.3.3. Fundamental Principles of Programming The following principles shall motivate and inform all aspects of programming: 1. Poverty focus: EC development policy shall be centred on the objective to re-

duce and, eventually, to eradicate poverty6 while taking into consideration other

6 Overall Statement by the Commission and the Council on the European Community’s Development policy, adopted by the Development Council on 10 November 2000.

8

http://www1.oecd.org/dac/indicators/htm/goals.htm


objectives set out in Article 177 of the Treaty as well as in the regulations and in-ternational agreements for each geographical region.

2. Policy mix: Strategy and programming documents must be comprehensive and account for all EC policies, resources and instruments (the EC ‘policy mix’), that are applied in a partner country (as trade policy, fisheries policy and Common Foreign and Security Policy).

3. Country ownership: The starting points for the preparation of strategies and pro-gramming are the EU/EC’s co-operation objectives and the country’s own policy agenda. For countries that are involved in the World Bank initiative on the estab-lishment of Poverty Reduction Strategies, it is assumed that the starting point will be the PRSP process.

4. Work sharing and complementarity: Every effort must be made to maximise in-formation sharing and ensure complementarity with the efforts of the govern-ment (and civil society partners), Member States’ interventions, and activities of multilateral agencies.

5. Comprehensive country analysis: The approach to programming must be inte-grated and consider the political, economic, trade, social, cultural and environ-mental aspects of development.

6. Concentration of efforts on a limited number of areas: Six priority areas for EC co-operation are identified in the Overall Policy Statement: trade and develop-ment; regional integration, macroeconomic policies including support to the so-cial sectors, transport, food security/rural development and institutional capacity building.

7. Cross-cutting and overarching policy issues: At every stage of execution of the activities previously reviewed, a number of such concerns have to be consid-ered: the promotion of human rights, equality between men and women, the en-vironmental dimension, etc.). Also conflict prevention and crisis management re-quire systematic attention.

8. Other key aspects of EC development policy: In addition to the areas of concen-tration and cross-cutting concerns, the statement recalls the importance of (i) accelerated action targeting the communicable disease situation (such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis), (ii) information and communications tech-nologies and (iii) supporting research in developing countries.

9. Wherever possible, the focus on individual projects should gradually be replaced by a sector programme or policy-based approach; providing support to coherent national policies in each sector or co-operation area.

10. Feedback: Lessons of past experience and results of relevant evaluations shall systematically be taken into account and be fed back into the programming process.

11. Focus on outcomes: The programming, implementation and review process shall include systematic use of a few key outcome indicators, designed to show and measure the impact of the EC resources committed.

12. Open partnership: The co-operation partnership shall be extended to civil soci-ety, private sector and local authorities, which in many cases should be associ-ated with the policy dialogue and the implementation of projects.

9


2.3.4. Checking the Quality of an Indicative Programme The following questions may provide guidance when checking the quality of an In-dicative Programme: • Are the objectives of the indicative programme clear and unambiguous? Do they

cover aspects of good governance, poverty alleviation, environmental protection and gender equality?

• Are the sectoral objectives clearly linked to the objectives of the indicative pro-gramme?

• Are the objectives clearly defined? Are the indicators appropriate? • What are the assumptions and risks underlying the objectives? How critical to the

programme’s success are they and how likely is it that they will be achieved? • Have the goals and objectives been clearly understood and accepted by all rele-

vant partner country institutions?

2.4. Identification

2.4.1. Introduction During the Identification phase, and within the framework established by the Country Strategy Paper, the stress is on analysis of relevance of project ideas, which in-cludes an analysis of the stakeholders and of the likely target groups and beneficiar-ies (who they are: women and men from different socio-economic groups; assess-ment of their potentials, etc.) and of the situation, including an analysis of the prob-lems they face, and the identification of options to address these problems. Sectoral, thematic or “pre-feasibility” studies may be carried out (including consulta-tions with stakeholders) to help identify, select or investigate specific ideas, and to define what further studies may be needed to formulate a project or action. The out-come is a decision on whether or not the option(s) developed should be further stud-ied in detail. Overall responsibility for Identification is with EuropeAid who initiates missions, studies and related preparatory work (including consultations with others donors and potential co-financing) in order to define the activities (projects, pro-grammes, sectoral support, etc.) to be financed. A priority list is established by DG DEV/RELEX indicating which projects should be appraised immediately for a rapid start of implementation, in the following year and so on.

Identifying ideas and further steps

2.4.2. Expected Outcomes of Identification The expected outcomes of Identification are: • Where required, a pre-feasibility study analysing a given situation, suggesting dif-

ferent options to address this situation and suggesting the one(s) to be further studied during appraisal to ensure these ideas are feasible.

• A Project Identification Sheet based, if possible, on the pre-feasibility study, and examining the coherence between the project / programme proposed and the objectives defined in the CSP/NIP,

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

indicating relevant experience to be taken into account, determining the subsequent steps.

• A decision taken by the EC and the partner country to appraise the suggested option(s) in detail (priority list), to reject the project.

10


In terms of Logical Framework, the pre-feasibility study should establish a rough project description covering basically the Intervention Logic and the Assumptions. This means that it should go through the Analysis Stage and parts of the Planning Stage of the LFA, establishing Stakeholder Analysis, Problem Analysis, Analysis of Objectives, Strategy Analysis. In most cases, it will be sufficient to roughly elaborate the Intervention Logic and the Assumptions for the preferred option, as well as give indications for possible Indicators, especially at the level of the Project Purpose and the Results. So the outcome would look as follows:

Figure 5: The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the End of Identification

The Logframe: What should be Outlined at the End of Identification

Intervention Logic

Sources of Verification

Assumptions

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities Means Cost

Pre-condi-tions

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

In addition, the pre-feasibility study should provide a first draft for an implementation Schedule. Such a schedule should outline the timing for the major elements of fur-ther preparation and implementation. In cases where no pre-feasibility study is made, the Implementation Schedule should be prepared by the task manager. In both cases it will accompany the Project Identification Sheet and thus serve for de-cision by DG DEV/RELEX about the further timing of appraisal and implementation. It should regularly be updated by the task manager. During implementation, the pro-ject managers are responsible for updating the schedule and to submit it as part of the progress reports.

2.4.3. Major Tasks At the level of an individual project, Identification will usually involve the following major tasks: 1. Organising consultations with other donors throughout the phase. 2. Drafting TOR for the pre-feasibility study (Standard TOR are available on the

Intranet of EuropeAid – working tools), based on: • the Overall Objectives of co-operation with the concerned partner country, • background information about the country, sector, region concerned, in-

cluding overall sector strategies or sector support programmes, • discussions with stakeholders likely to be concerned by the project, • experience in the country in the same or comparable sectors or regions,

11


• lessons learnt through evaluation of similar projects7. 3. Drafting tender documents for the pre-feasibility study according to the existing

procedures and selecting contractor according to existing procedures. 4. Briefing contractor and parties involved and monitoring pre-feasibility study mis-

sion. 5. Ensuring quality of outcome (reports) and feedback to parties involved, including

assessment and improvement of the project ideas and decision whether or not further action is justified. If so, defining issues for a feasibility study and drawing up terms of reference.

6. Drafting the Project Identification Sheet and submitting it for priority listing. A typical pre-feasibility study mission would last several weeks in the partner country, followed by a shorter period outside this country. This mission is one of the most im-portant stages in the planning of new projects. During the mission the study team must work closely with the potential beneficiaries and target groups. The key focus for the mission is: 1. To consult with proposed beneficiaries and target groups to assess their strengths

and weaknesses and to check their likely commitment to a project. This consulta-tion will take the form of individual and group meetings both with the potential partner institutions and the beneficiaries / target groups. It is recommended to hold a diagnosis workshop to run through the Analysis and parts of the Planning Phase of the LFA as described above.

2. To ensure that potential project options are coherently defined with a logical analysis of problems, achievable objectives linked to (sub-)sector objectives and the objectives in the indicative programme as well as to the overarching policy ob-jectives.

3. To define the Overall Objectives, Project Purpose and Results which are ex-pected from project activities for the preferred option.

4. To identify assumptions on which the project would be based. 5. To identify those factors which will influence the project’s sustainability and the

likely partner’s arrangements for the post-project period. 6. To provide a first estimate of means and cost. 7. To identify those aspects of the project where further analysis and planning work

will be required in order to ensure feasibility of the intervention, finalize planning and draft the financing proposal.

8. To ensure that the project has an appropriate size, taking into account the capac-ity of the likely partner institution and target groups.

2.4.4. Project Identification Criteria When assessing the quality of project ideas at the end of the Identification phase (i.e. the pre-feasibility study report), it should mainly be ensured that these ideas are likely to be relevant and that they are as well likely to be feasible (most steps of the sustainability check will take place during Appraisal). The following questions and assessment criteria should provide guidance for this check:

7 The PCM training programme offers a tool for assessing first project ideas and for drafting TOR for a feasibility studies. This Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals, which is intended for in-depth analysis of project proposals prior to the appraisal phase can be downloaded from the Intranet of EuropeAid – working tools. The Guide contains instructions that provide a framework for analysing the coherence and comprehensiveness of a project proposal. The project design is deconstructed and recon-structed, in order to identify the gaps and inconsistencies, and thereby to identify questions for inclusion in the terms of reference for a feasibility study.

12


Table 2: Quality Criteria for Assessment of Project Ideas Question Quality assessment criterion 1. Relevance 1.1 Are the project objectives

in line with the overarching policy objectives of strengthening good governance, human rights and the rule of law, and poverty alleviation?

Outline project objectives are compatible with the overarching policy objectives; they fully respect them in the approach and seek to contrib-ute to their achievement. The proposal indicates which of them are most relevant and how they are linked to the project objectives.

1.2 Are the major stake-holders of the project clearly identified and de-scribed?

The stakeholders likely to be most important for the project have been consulted; and target groups and other beneficiaries have been identi-fied. They have expressed their interest and expectations, the role they are willing to play, the resources and capacities they may provide, also in a gender-differentiated way. The other stakeholders have expressed general support for the likely objectives of the project. Conclusions are drawn on how the project could deal with the groups (alternatives are shown).

1.3 Are the beneficiaries (tar-get groups and final bene-ficiaries) clearly identified?

Their socio-economic roles and positions, geographical location, organ-isational set-up, resource endowment, etc. are described in detail. Educational/skills level, management capacities and their specific potentials are also described in detail, especially for the target groups, providing a gender breakdown, where appropriate. The analysis addresses options how the project could take advantage of and support skills, potentials, etc. of the target groups.

1.5 Are the problems of target groups and final benefici-aries sufficiently de-scribed?

They are described in detail, including information on the specific prob-lems faced by the target groups (including sub-groups) and the final beneficiaries. Problem description of possible project partners show their specific problems and relate them to the problems of the target groups.

1.6 Is the problem analysis sufficiently comprehen-sive?

The causes of the problems of target groups / final beneficiaries have been researched, and the problem analysis gives a clear indication of how these problems are related (cause – effect).

1.7 Do the outlined Overall Objectives explain why the project is important for sectoral development and society?

The proposals outlines • which longer term benefit the final beneficiaries find in the project, • how the project fits within the sectoral policies of the Government

and the sectoral objectives stated in the Indicative Programme, Country Strategy Paper, etc., and

• how the project fits within the overarching policy objectives of the EC.

1.8 Does the Project Purpose express a direct benefit for the target groups?

The Project Purpose describes a direct benefit to be derived from the project by the target groups at the end of the project as a consequence of achieving the Results.

1.9 Does the EcoFin (Finan-cial and Economic) Analy-sis provide adequate in-formation on the questions raised above?

The EcoFin Analysis provides data on the possible incremental net benefit of the beneficiaries as well as on the contribution to the achievement of national and EU policy priorities, if possible for various project alternatives.

13


2. Feasibility 2.1 Will the Project Purpose

contribute to the Overall Objectives (if the Assump-tions hold true)?

Previous experience (in other projects or regions) has shown a strong causal relationship between the Project Purpose and Overall Objec-tives.

2.2 Are Results products of the implementation of Ac-tivities?

All Results are a consequence of undertaking the related Activities.

2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if the Results are attained?

There is evidence that there is a direct and logical link between the Re-sults and the Purpose in terms of means-ends relationship, i.e. the achievement of the Results will remove the main problems underlying the Project Purpose.

2.4 Can the Results and Pur-pose realistically be achieved with the Means suggested (first estimate)?

Indicators for Results and Purpose are ‘specific’ and are at least partly described with measurable quantities, time frame, target group, location and quality. There is also evidence that Indicators of the Results and Purpose are realistic given the time frame set for the project.

2.5 Have important external factors been identified?

Given the experience in the country and sector, and based on the analy-sis of objectives, major external factors have been identified at the relevant levels in the logframe.

2.6 Is the probability of reali-sation of the Assumptions acceptable?

For each Assumption, some evidence is provided that the probability of realisation is acceptable.

2.7 Will the suggested project partners and implementing agencies be able to im-plement the project?

The potential partners have actively participated in the identification phase and have relevant implementing experience. If they do not have this experience outline capacity building measures are already sug-gested to enhance implementation capacity.

2.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis provide adequate informa-tion on the questions raised above?

Efficiency is assessed roughly according to the EcoFin guidelines. Relevant alternatives were analysed. The impact of main risks was as-sessed.

Only if each criterion is met fully or at least fairly, it is recommendable to continue with the appraisal of the project. Otherwise, • satisfactory clarification of the issue under consideration should be sought, i.e.

complementary information should be gathered from concerned parties, or • additional studies may be launched, etc. before deciding to continue with the ap-

praisal of the project by drafting TOR for the feasibility study – or • the project idea should be completely rejected.

2.5. Appraisal

2.5.1. Introduction During the Appraisal phase, EuropeAid launches any preparatory studies as may be required and manages their technical, contractual and financial aspects. Relevant project ideas are developed into project plans. The particular stress should be on feasibility and sustainability / quality of the suggested intervention. Beneficiaries and other stakeholders participate in the detailed specification of the project idea that is then assessed for its feasibility (whether it is likely to succeed) and sustainability (whether it is likely to generate long-term benefits). Again, checks need to ensure that cross-cutting issues and overarching policy objectives are adequately consid-ered in the project design and objectives. A detailed Logical Framework with Indica-tors, and Implementation, Activity and Resource Schedules, should be produced.

Defining de-tails of the project

14


On the basis of these assessments, a decision is made on whether or not to draw up a formal financing proposal and seek funding for the project. The term “ex ante” evaluation is now frequently used for “Appraisal” or “Feasibility Study”. While Appraisal refers to studies during the preparatory phases of the pro-ject cycle (pre-feasibility or feasibility studies), “evaluation” as such concerns the as-sessment of an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy, its design, im-plementation and results (see section 2.8): “Ex ante evaluation is a process that supports the preparation of proposals for new or renewed Community actions. Its purpose is to gather information and carry out analyses that help to define objec-tives, to ensure that these objectives can be met, that the instruments used are cost-effective and that reliable later evaluation will be possible. (…)”8

What is ex ante evalua-tion?

2.5.2. Expected Outcomes of Appraisal The expected outcomes of Appraisal are: • A feasibility study establishing whether the proposed project identified in the pre-

feasibility study is relevant, feasible and likely to be sustainable, and detailing the technical, economic and financial, institutional and management, environmental and socio-cultural and operational aspects of the project. The purpose of the fea-sibility study will be to provide the decision-makers in the Government and the European Commission with sufficient information to justify acceptance, modifica-tion or rejection of the proposed project for further financing and implementation.

• A decision taken by the EC and the partner country to prepare a financing proposal based on the study ⇒

⇒

⇒

to reject the project to further study certain aspects, if not yet clarified in a satisfactory manner

In terms of Logical Framework, the feasibility study should establish a detailed pro-ject description covering all aspects of the logframe. In addition, an outline of an Ac-tivity Schedule and a Resource Schedule should as well be prepared for the project. Also, the preparation of a first draft financing proposal forms part of the appraisal.

Figure 6: The Logframe: What Should Be Defined at the End of Appraisal

The Logframe: What Should be Defined at the End of Appraisal

Intervention Logic


Assumptions

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities Means Cost

Pre-condi-tions

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

�� Outline of Activity and Resource schedule

8 From the DG Budget’s guide “Ex Ante” Evaluation: A Guide for Preparing Proposals for Expenditure Programmes. For further details please refer to the site http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf.

15

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf


2.5.3. Major Tasks For an individual project Appraisal will usually involve tasks comparable to those of the Identification phase. The drafting of the TOR for the feasibility study (Standard TOR are available the EuropeAid Intranet homepage, working tools – PCM, will be based on • the decision made concerning which option to study in-depth, • the pre-feasibility study report, taking into account the suggestions made there, • lessons learnt through evaluation of similar projects. Equally, the project design has to be assessed and improved, and a decision to be taken as to whether or not to proceed with the preparation of a financing proposal. A typical feasibility study mission will last several weeks. The key focus for the mis-sion will be: 1. To verify the relevance of the proposed project in addressing the existing prob-

lems, suggested in or in addition to the options studied in the pre-feasibility study. This means to check the validity of the logframe outline as it was devel-oped during the identification phase, and running in detail through the steps of the Planning Phase.

2. To ensure that the project objectives are in line with the objectives in the indica-tive programme, the overarching policy objectives of the EC and linked to the (sub-) sector objectives.

3. To assess in detail the feasibility of the proposed project and to prepare / final-ise a logical framework planning matrix.

4. To assess in detail the potential sustainability of the project results after project completion, based on consideration of the quality factors.

5. To prepare an Implementation Schedule, an outline for Activity and Resource Schedules and the institutional structure for implementation stipulating the re-sponsibilities of various bodies, project timing/phasing, estimated cost per budget item.

6. To draft design specifications, if required. 7. To prepare a draft Financing Proposal. 8. To provide recommendations for the next steps and any further actions neces-

sary to secure project financing and implementation and, possibly, the tender documents for the selection of consultancy services.

Holding a planning workshop towards the end of the mission (and focusing on final agreement on Overall Objectives, Results, Activities, Indicators, the outline of Activ-ity and Resource Schedules and implementation arrangements) is strongly recom-mended. This will help improving ownership by the target groups / beneficiaries9.
Planning workshops –An opportu-nity to en-hance own-ership
Applying quality cri-teria

2.5.4. Project Appraisal Criteria When assessing the quality of project design at the end of the appraisal phase, it should be ensured that the project is relevant, feasible and likely to be sustainable. The following questions and assessment criteria should provide guidance for this check:

16

9 Standard TOR for the Moderation of a Logical Framework Planning Workshop are available on the Intranet site of EuropeAid (working tools – PCM).


Table 3: Quality Criteria for Assessment of a Detailed Project Design (or Draft Financing Proposal)

Question Quality assessment criterion 1. Relevance 1.1 Are the project objectives in

line with the overarching pol-icy objectives of strengthen-ing good governance, human rights and the rule of law, and poverty alleviation?

The project objectives are compatible with these objectives they fully respect them in the approach and seek to contribute to their achievement. The pro-posal states clearly which of them are most relevant and how they are linked to the project objectives.

1.2 Are the major stakeholders of the project clearly identified and described?

The most important stakeholders for the project identified during identifica-tion have been confirmed and consulted; and the target groups and other beneficiaries are clearly identified, have confirmed their interest and expec-tations, the role they are willing to play, the resources and capacities they will provide, also in a gender differentiated way. The other stakeholders have confirmed their general support for the objectives of the project. Clear conclusions are drawn on how the project intends to deal with the groups.

1.3 Are the beneficiaries (target groups and final beneficiar-ies) clearly identified?

Their socio-economic roles and positions, geographical location, organisa-tional set-up, resource endowment, etc. are described in detail. Educa-tional/skills level, management capacities and their specific potentials are also described in detail, especially for the target groups, providing a gender breakdown where appropriate. The analysis shows clearly how the project will take advantage of and support skills, potentials, etc. of the target groups. No major changes occur compared to the pre-feasibility study.

1.5 Are the problems of target groups and final beneficiaries sufficiently described?

They are described in detail, including information on the specific problems faced by the target groups (including sub-groups) and the final beneficiaries. Problem description of project partners show their specific problems and relate them clearly to the problems of the target groups.

1.6 Is the problem analysis suffi-ciently comprehensive?

The causes of the problems of target groups / final beneficiaries have been researched, and the problem analysis gives a clear indication of how these problems are related (cause – effect).

1.7 Do Overall Objectives explain why the project is important for sectoral development and society?

The proposals clearly indicates • which longer term benefit the final beneficiaries find in the project, • how the project fits within the sectoral policies of the Government and the

sectoral objectives stated in the Indicative Programme, Country Strategy Paper, etc., and

• how the project fits within the overarching policy objectives of the EC 1.8 Does the Project Purpose

express a direct benefit for the target groups?

The Project Purpose describes a direct benefit to be derived from the project by the target groups at the end of the project as a consequence of achieving the Results.

1.9 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis pro-vide sufficient information on the questions raised above?

The EcoFin Analysis has been performed according to the EcoFin guide-lines and provides extensive data on the incremental net benefit of the bene-ficiaries as well as on the contribution to the achievement of national and EU policy priorities

2. Feasibility 2.1 Will the Project Purpose con-

tribute to the Overall Objec-tives (if the Assumptions hold true)?

Previous experience (in other projects or regions) has shown a strong causal relationship between the Project Purpose and Overall Objectives.

2.2 Are Results products of the implementation of Activities?

All Results are a consequence of undertaking the related Activities.

2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if all Results are attained?

There is clear evidence that there is a direct and logical link between the Results and the Purpose in terms of means-ends relationship, i.e. the achievement of the Results will remove the main problems underlying the Project Purpose.

17


Question Quality assessment criterion 2.4 Are the Means sufficiently

justified by quantified objec-tives?

Indicators for Results and Purpose are ‘specific’ and are described with measurable quantities, time frame, target group, location and quality, if pos-sible. There is also confirmation of evidence that Indicators of the Results and Purpose are realistic given the time frame set for the project.

2.5 Have important external fac-tors been identified?

External factors and accompanying measures have been comprehensively identified at the relevant levels in the logframe.

2.6 Is the probability of realisa-tion of the Assumptions ac-ceptable?

For each Assumption, supporting evidence is provided that the probability of realisation is acceptable.

2.7 Will the project partners and implementing agencies be able to implement the pro-ject?

Responsibilities and procedures have been clearly established, the partners have actively participated in the appraisal phase, there is clear evidence that they have relevant implementing experience and most of the capacity to cope with the tasks of the project. If not: sufficient capacity building meas-ures are foreseen to enhance implementation capacity.

2.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis provide sufficient information on the questions raised above?

Efficiency analysis was carried out according to the EcoFin guidelines. Relevant alternatives were analysed in detail. Appropriate sensitivity tests were carried out.

3. Sustainability 3.1 Will there be adequate own-

ership of the project by the target groups / beneficiaries?

Target groups and beneficiaries took the initiative to promote the initial idea, they have been active participants in all phases of the planning process, and major decisions have been validated by them or their representatives. They agreed and committed themselves to achieve the objectives of the project.

3.2 Will the relevant authorities have a supportive policy dur-ing implementation and after project completion?

Relevant authorities have demonstrated support to projects of this type through the adaptation of rules, regulations and policies, and the commit-ment of significant resources.

3.3 Is the technology approach appropriate for the local con-ditions?

Various alternatives have been examined, and in the selection the different needs of the target groups and beneficiaries (men and women), local condi-tions and capacities (technical, financial, etc.) have been taken into account.

3.4 Will the ecological environ-ment be preserved during and after the project?

The appropriate level of Environment Assessment has been carried out (En-vironmental Integration Form), and all necessary recommendations are inte-grated in project design. This means that an environment management plan which specifies the environmental (mitigating) measures to be undertaken should be in place, as well as a plan for monitoring the environmental situa-tion of the project and for taking further environmental action should the mitigating measures prove insufficient.

3.5 Will all beneficiaries have adequate access to benefits and products during and after the project?

Socio-cultural norms and attitudes have been analysed for all major sub-groups of beneficiaries, and details are provided how these norms and atti-tudes will be taken into account in the project to ensure a more equitable distribution of access and benefits.

3.6 Will the project contribute to gender equality?

Sufficient measures are built into the project to ensure that it will meet the needs and interests of both women and men and will lead to sustained and equitable access by women and men to the services and infrastructures.

3.7 Will the implementing agen-cies be able to provide follow-up after the project?

The implementing agencies have demonstrated a strong interest in continu-ing to deliver Results post-project, adequate institution-building measures have been built into the project to enable them to do so, and evidence exists that the required resources (human and financial) will be available.

3.8 Does the EcoFin Analysis provide sufficient information on the questions raised above?

The EcoFin Analysis was carried out according to the EcoFin Guidelines. The Financial Analysis of the main stakeholders shows in detail that the pro-ject is sustainable both during and after the project. The Economic Analysis provides clear evidence that the project is sustainable internationally.

18


2.6. Financing

2.6.1. Introduction The financing proposal is completed and considered by the appropriate committee; and a decision is taken whether or not to fund the project. A formal agreement with the partner Government or another entity is then signed by both including essential financing implementation arrangements. Based on the previous studies and subsequent discussions, a final version of the Financing Proposal needs to be drafted and assessed / examined during the Fi-nancing phase by EuropeAid with regard to a set of quality criteria, and agreed by DG RELEX/DEV. Subsequently, Financing Proposals are examined by the compe-tent authority (committee), and a decision is taken on whether or not to fund the pro-ject. The EC and the partner country or another entity will then agree upon the mo-dalities of implementation and formalise these in a legal document which sets out the arrangements by which the project will be funded and implemented.

2.6.2. Major Tasks and Expected Outcomes of Financing The major tasks have already been mentioned above. The drafting of the final ver-sion of the Financing Proposal will include specification of accompanying measures to facilitate project implementation, if not yet done. A format for FP is outlined below. The expected outcomes of Financing are: • A final version of the Financing Proposal in the defined format which should cover

all aspects of the logframe • A decision taken by the EC and the partner country:

to submit the financing proposal to the competent authority, ⇒

⇒ to redesign or reject the project. • A signed financing agreement or memorandum signed by the EC and the partner

country, including the Technical and Administrative Provisions for implementa-tion.

2.6.3. Project Financing Criteria When assessing the quality of project design before submission of the FP to the competent authority, a further check should be made to ensure that the project is relevant, feasible and sustainable. To check this, the same questions as in Chap-ter 2.5.4 should be used.

Applying quality cri-teria

19


Table 4: Format for a Financing Proposal10 SUMMARY

A RELEVANCE 1. Consistency with global objectives

1.1 Overarching EC aid policy objectives and priorities 1.2 Objectives of the relevant Indicative Programme (national, regional) 1.3 Link with annual country review

2. Sectoral analysis 2.1 Features of the sector concerned 2.2 Status of national/regional policy

3. Analysis of the situation 6.1 Stakeholder analysis (including target groups, beneficiaries, other stakeholders) 6.2 Problems to be addressed at the level of the target groups / beneficiaries

4. Origins and preparation of the project B FEASIBILITY 5 Project description

5.1 Overall Objectives including Indicators and Sources of Verification 5.2 Project Purpose including Indicators and Sources of Verification 5.3 Results including Indicators and Sources of Verification and related Activities

6. Project analysis and environment 6.1 Lessons from past experience 6.2 Linkage with other operations, complementarity and sectoral co-ordination between do-

nors 6.3 Results of economic and cross-sectoral appraisals 6.4 Risks and Assumptions (related to implementation)

7 Project implementation 7.1 Physical and non-physical means 7.2 Organisational and implementation procedures 7.3 Technology used 7.4 Timetable, cost and financing plan 7.5 Special conditions and accompanying measures to be taken by the Government 7.6 Monitoring arrangements 7.7 Evaluations/audits

C SUSTAINABILITY / QUALITY 8 Measures ensuring sustainability /quality

8.1 Participation and ownership by beneficiaries 8.2 Policy support 8.3 Appropriate technology 8.4 Socio-cultural aspects 8.5 Gender equality 8.6 Environmental protection 8.7 Institutional and management capacities 8.8 Economic and financial viability

D ANNEXES 9.1 Logical Framework (compulsory) 9.2 Stakeholder analysis, problem and objectives analysis (compulsory) 9.3 Implementation Schedule and Overall Activity Schedule (compulsory) 9.4 Environmental Integration Form (compulsory) 9.5 Gender Integration Form (compulsory) 9.6 Economic and Financial Analysis (compulsory) 9.7 Details about co-ordination meetings with other donors, especially Member States (op-

tional) 9.8 Others (to be specified)

10 At the moment, this format is different for the different co-operation instruments of EC external co-operation. When preparing FPs, task managers should follow the officially ap-proved structure.

20


2.7. Implementation, Including Monitoring and Reporting

2.7.1. Introduction Once a project has been planned and financial support been secured, implementa-tion can start. The agreed resources are used to achieve the Project Purpose and to contribute to the wider, Overall Objectives. This usually involves contracts for stud-ies, technical assistance, works or supplies. Progress is assessed (= monitoring) to enable adjustment to changing circumstances. The Interservice Agreement specifies overall distribution of responsibilities for Im-plementation. As a general rule, EuropeAid is responsible for all aspects of imple-mentation, including, inter alia, procurement, contractual and financial management, monitoring, audits, etc., and provides DG RELEX/DEV with regular feedback on the basis of regularly-prepared monitoring reports.

2.7.2. Expected Outcomes of Implementation The expected outcomes of Implementation are: • A successful project meeting its Purpose and contributing to its Overall Objec-

tives. • Evidence that means allocated have been used in an efficient, effective and

transparent way.

2.7.3. Major Tasks to Be Managed at EC Level/Partner Country Level For a task manager, be it in a delegation or in HQ, or at the level of the partner country, Implementation usually involves the following major tasks: 1. Preparing the tender documents for service, works and supply contracts, includ-

ing TOR for technical assistance (contractor), if required11. 2. Monitoring of implementation, suggesting corrective measures if required to sup-

port assurance of the quality of the outcome of the project 3. Supporting timeliness of means, where relevant, and facilitating communication

and information flow between and feedback to parties involved 4. Manage evaluations and audits, if required 5. Ensuring successful decision-making process concerning whether or not to pur-

sue the objectives of the project in a further phase (and to launch further pre-paratory action) or to abandon the objectives of the project

The following chapters mainly focus on points 2 and 3. Mid-term and final evalua-tions are important elements of implementation. While the first may have a relatively direct impact on the project orientation (or re-orientation), the impact of the latter will become more important for subsequent programming or identification. Such evalua-tion exercises should not be mixed up with monitoring exercises. Details about Evaluation are provided in Chapter 2.8.

11 Detailed tender procedures exist for each co-operation instrument of the EC. Projects are either implemented by independent contractors (for TACIS, this is general) or by the identified implementing agencies, with support of technical assistance.

21


2.7.4. Implementation and Monitoring at Project Level: An Overview Usually, projects and programmes are implemented over several years. Project management is responsible for implementation, the latter generally being composed of the following periods: 1. Inception period 2. Main implementation period 3. Final period Throughout the implementation of the project and depending on the modalities fore-seen in the contract/financing agreements, three major principles apply: 1. Planning and re-planning. The initially prepared Implementation Schedule, log-

frame and Activity and Resource Schedules are regularly reviewed, refined, and updated accordingly. Implementa-

tion: A learn-ing process

2. Monitoring. Project management has the task of establishing sufficient controls over the project to ensure that it stays on track towards the achievement of its objectives. This is done by monitoring (internal) which is the systematic and con-tinuous collection, analysis and use of information for management control and decision-making. Implementation is a continuous learning process where ex-perience gathered is analysed and fed back into planning and updated imple-mentation approaches.

Figure 7: Implementation: A Learning Process

Implementation: A Learning Process

Re-planning

Decision making

Implementation Implementation

Monitoring

3. Reporting. Project management/implementing agency must provide reports on

progress. The aim of these reports is to provide sufficiently detailed information to check the state of advance of the project in light of its objectives, the hoped for Results and the Activities to be carried out. These reports cover also details of budget implementation, and include the details of the future budgetary provi-sions for the following reporting period. Progress reports are most likely to be submitted on a quarterly basis. These principles are reflected in the approach to documentation to be followed during implementation.

22


Table 5: Approach to Documentation During Implementation Inception period Main implementation period Final period

Inception report Quarterly pro-gress reports year 1

Annual pro-gress report year 1

Quarterly pro-gress reports year 2

Annual pro-gress report year 2

… Final report

Including:

Updated Logical Framework

Updated Logi-cal Framework




Updated Logi-cal Framework & justification of changes

Overall Work Plan = Overall Activity Schedule

Updated Over-all Work Plan = Overall Activity Schedule





Overall Resource Schedule

Updated Over-all Resource Schedule





Annual Work Plan = Annual Activity Schedule year 1

Annual Work Plan = Annual Activity Sched-ule year 1


Annual Work Plan = Annual Activity Schedule year 2


…

Annual Resource Schedule year 1

Annual Re-source Sched-ule year 1




…

Updated Imple-mentation Schedule

Updated Im-plementation Schedule




Final Imple-mentation Schedule

Details about each implementation period and outlines for Overall and Annual Work Plans are provided in Chapter 5.3. As for overall implementation, the Implementation Schedule is an important tool12: It is an administrative planning and monitoring document covering administrative mile-stones and sequencing from the preparatory phases to project completion and evaluation. It provides an idea on how these milestones are met, and whether de-lays occur. During Implementation, this can indicate the need for re-planning, given the fact that e.g. the remaining period may not be sufficient to undertake certain works, studies, etc. As all other planning documents, the Implementation Schedule has to be up-dated by the project management, and should be included in the progress reports. Conclusions with regard to deviations should be made there. While work plans are objective-oriented and include resource scheduling related to these objectives, the Implementation Schedule emphasizes resource categories that may require budget-ary commitments and / or tendering, as well as other administrative milestones like reporting that may also lead to disbursements.

12 The table provides a suggested best practice template, which is not yet used as stan-dard.

23


Table 6: Example of an Implementation Schedule Date of first preparation: dd/mm/yy Last date of modification: dd/mm/yy

02.01.00 01.07.03

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

XX

Pre-feasibility Study Original planning*

Implement./planning**

Feasibility Study Original planning* xxxImplement./planning** xxxOriginal planning* xxxxImplement./planning**

Original planning*


Original planning*


Original planning*


Original planning* I Q Q A Q Q Q A Q Q Q A F

Implement./planning** I Q Q A Q Q Q A Q Q F

Original planning*


Original planning*


* Original planning of first draft implementation schedule (date: dd/mm/yy)** Implemenation status to date as per dd/mm/yy and current planning for remaining period

Codes:Original planning: Present implementation status and planningTender duration planned for remaining period:Contract duration planned Tender realised/planned for remaining periodReport submission planned: Contracts realised/planned for remaining period

1 Inception Report Report submitted/submission planned for 2 Quarterly Report remaining period:3 Annual Report 1 Inception Report I4 Final Report 2 Quarterly Report Q

3 Annual Report A4 Final Report F

Possible extension

xxx

Commitment Date

xxxxxx

Project completion

Financing Agreement signed

Reports

Evaluations

Staff Training

TA

Construction W orks

Supplies

Implemen tation Sch edu le (for 4 year project)

Project Preparation Year 2 Year 3Project number: Project Title:

Year 4Year 1

xxxxxxxx

Post Project

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxx

F

I

AQ

��

��

��

��

24


2.7.4.1. What is Monitoring? Project monitoring is an integral part of day-to-day management. It provides informa-tion by which management can identify and solve implementation problems, and as-sess progress. The Logical Framework, the implementation Schedule and the Activ-ity and Resource Schedules provide the basis. The following basic issues need to be regularly monitored: • Which Activities are underway and what progress has been made (e.g. at

weekly intervals)?

What to monitor?

• At what rate are means being used and cost incurred in relation to progress in implementation (e.g. monthly)?

• Are the desired Results being achieved (e.g. quarterly update)? (efficiency) • To what extent are these Results furthering the Project Purpose (e.g. half-yearly

analysis)? (effectiveness) • What changes in the project environment occur? Do the Assumptions hold true? Project management checks how the objectives are met, and analyses the changes in the project environment including key stakeholder groups, local strategies and policies. If progress falls short, corrective action has to be taken. Details of any ac-tion have to be included in the next progress report.

2.7.4.2. Reporting on Progress During the inception period of a project, mechanisms for communication have to be established to ensure that the necessary information is generated and utilized in a timely and effective manner. In this context: • Progress review meetings are useful to review progress against the plan. This

may be also an opportunity for written reports to be presented and discussed, or simply for a rapid oral assessment of current issues and problems.

• Project progress reports provide periodic summaries of project progress incorporating key information from the physical and financial indicators included in the logframe, Activity Schedule and Resource Schedule.

Progress reports are to be written in a standard format allowing for comparison be-tween reports over time. The purpose of progress reports is to provide updates on achievements against indicators and milestones, using the following framework: e-

Data about intended achievements, is compared with

How to rport?

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

Data on actual achievements, to identify... significant deviations from plan, as a basis for...

identification of problems and opportunities, to identify... corrective action and alternatives.

Chapter 5.3.4 provides details about reporting formats and types.

25


2.7.5. Monitoring of Implementation at EC and Partner Country Level It is important to relate information needs to the different levels of the management structure. In reality, the level of detail of information required and the frequency of reporting will vary according to the level of management. The following figure illus-trates this principle.

Who needs the informa-tion?

Figure 8: Information Needs and Levels of Management

Information Needs and Levels of Management

Volume of information

Summarised

Detailed

Flow ofinformation

EC Technical Unit

Delegation/Ministry

Programme management

Individual project/component

EC Head of Unit

The details provided in progress reports will be most helpful for those close to the “field-level”. The others will need aggregated information, and a more independent judgment of the progress, to launch the relevant corrective measures at their level, if required. In the EC context, several external monitoring systems are currently operational to gather summary information for all Commission-funded external aid projects13. In principle, the same questions as for internal monitoring need to be asked at these levels though not all the details will be required. In addition, the focus of the external monitoring will not only lie on efficiency and effectiveness (including Assumptions) but also cover questions of overall relevance, impact and sustainability14. Both inter-nal/project level monitoring and external monitoring operate in a way that decisions based on the observations and recommendations can be made in due course, thus having a direct and rapid impact on project management.

13 The external monitors are contractors whose role is to analyse project progress, make field visits to projects and prepare monitoring reports which are then submitted to those in charge of supervising implementation (including task managers and delegation, partner insti-tution, etc.). They play an important role in providing an independent follow-up on progress and in liaising with the parties involved to identify implementation problems. 14 More exhaustive lists of relevant monitoring questions can be found on the monitoring sheets of these external monitoring systems.

26


2.8. Evaluation

2.8.1. Introduction Evaluation is an “assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an ongo-ing or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and Re-sults. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, develop-mental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An evaluation should pro-vide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of both recipients and donors”15. An evaluation can be done during implementation (“mid-term”), at its end (“final evaluation”) or afterwards (“ex post evaluation”), either to help steer the project or to draw lessons for future projects and programming. “Ex ante” evaluation16 refers to studies during the preparatory phases of the project cycle (pre-feasibility or feasibil-ity studies). These kinds of studies are treated in section 2.5. A typical evaluation mission would last several weeks in the partner country, fol-lowed by a shorter period in the European Union. The major principles governing evaluation can be summarised as follows:

Figure 9: Major Principles of Evaluation

Major Principles of EvaluationImpartiality & independence of the evaluation process in its function from the process concerned with policy making, the delivery and management of assistance (= separation of evaluation and responsibility for the project/ programme/policy)Credibility depending on expertise and independence of the evaluators & transparency to be sought through an open process, wide availability of results, distinction between findings and recommendationsUsefulness: relevant, presented in a clear and concise way, reflecting theinterests and needs of the parties involved, easily accessible, timely and at the right moment improved decision-makingParticipation of stakeholders (donor, recipient...); if possible: views and expertise of groups affected should form integral part of the evaluation; involving all parties capacity building

DAC 1991

2.8.2. Overall Responsibilities for Evaluation As regards responsibilities, two types of evaluation can be distinguished within EC’s external co-operation programmes: 1. Evaluation of individual projects: EuropeAid is responsible for the evaluation of

individual projects and for sending a copy of each completed evaluation report to the service maintaining the database of all evaluations. Evaluation studies are financed under project/programme funds.

2. Evaluation of the results of country/regional and sectoral policies and pro-grammes, of programming performance and of the policies mix: This type of evaluation is managed by EuropeAid’s Evaluation Unit (H/6) under the direct au-

15 OECD / DAC, 1998: Review of the DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development As-sistance. 16 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf for a guide.

27

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/ex_ante_guide_en.pdf


thority of the Board of EuropeAid. The unit feeds the results back into the policy-making and programming process.

The Evaluation Unit has a separate budget and is completely independent of the operational services. It has also a key role as an advisory service: • At the level of project evaluations it provides guidance, on request, to the ser-

vices concerned on such aspects as terms of reference, choice of consultants, and quality of draft reports.

• The Unit participates in the activities of the Inter-Service Quality Support Group (i-QSG) which focuses on the programming level, while “Office Quality Support Groups” have the primary responsibility for looking at the quality of the design of the funded operations.

2.8.3. Types of Evaluations Evaluations can take place:

1. when the project is still under way: such interim evaluation are usually under-taken at mid-term (mid-term evaluation), to review progress and propose al-terations to project design during the remaining period of implementation;

2. at the end of a project (final or end-of-project evaluation), to document the re-sources used, results and progress towards objectives. The objective is to generate lessons about the project which can be used to improve future de-signs;

3. a number of years after completion (ex post evaluation), often focusing on impact.

2.8.4. Evaluation Criteria Evaluations under EC funds follow the evaluation criteria of the DAC that are closely linked to the logframe.

Table 7: Evaluation Criteria Used by the European Commission Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was sup-

posed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated, and including an assessment of the quality of project prepara-tion and design – i.e. the logic and completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design.

Efficiency The fact that the Results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how well inputs/means have been converted into Results, in terms of quality, quantity and time, and the quality of the Results achieved. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

Effectiveness An assessment of the contribution made by Results to achievement of the Project Purpose, and how Assumptions have affected project achieve-ments.

Impact The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider sectoral objectives summarised in the project’s Overall Objec-tives, and on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the EC.

Sustainability An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to con-tinue to flow after external funding has ended, and with particular refer-ence to factors of ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, appropriate technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management ca-pacity.

28


Figure 10: Linking Evaluation Criteria to the Logframe

Linking Evaluation Criteria to the LogframeHave and will products and benefits be maintained?

Quality of planning and adaptation, including relevance of problems to correct beneficiaries, OVIs, means, cost, assumptions, risks

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose+ Assumptions

Results+ Assumptions

Activities+ Assumptions

+ Pre-conditions

allocation

action

utilisation

change

Means

Efficiency

Effective-ness

Impact

Relevance

Sustain-ability

How were inputs and activities converted into Results?

How well did the Results contribute to the achievement of the Project Purpose?

Which benefits on society and sector?

2.8.5. What is the Difference Between Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit? Frequently, there is confusion about what monitoring, evaluation and audit are, where and how they differ and how they can be delimited from each other. The fol-lowing figures define and compare the three terms as they are in use in the EC ex-ternal co-operation context.

Figure 11: Comparing Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit

Evaluation, Monitoring and Audit (1)

once or twice, essentially at the end or 'ex post' drawing lessons from the past in order to orient future policies and actions but also during implementation: mid-term evaluation to (re-) orient implementation

When?

external evaluators specialised in the subjects evaluatedWho?

in-depth analysisHow?

mainly analysis of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of aid policies and actions

What?

Evaluation:


regularly, several times per yearWhen?

internal and external (staff, monitors.....)Who?

rapid and continuous analysis, immediately useful to improve on-going actions; of key importance to improving performance

How?

mainly analysis of efficiency and effectiveness (i.e. measuring actual against planned deliverables); is a systematic management activity

What?

Monitoring:

29


.

during or after implementationWhen?

external, professional auditorsWho?

verification of financial records (financial audit)How?

traditionally checks whether financial operations and statements are in compliance with the legal and contractual obligations. More concerned with compliance, but better financial management can also contribute to improving current and future actions. More recently: Performance audit is strongly concerned with questions of efficiency and good management

What?

Audit:


2.8.6. Evaluation Reports: Outline and Issues to Be Considered The evaluation report should mirror the above evaluation criteria, taking into account the nature of the project, the stage at which the evaluation is carried out, and the users for whom the report is prepared. It should be kept in mind that information re-quirements vary widely between the different types of users. When drafting Terms of Reference it is necessary to decide the relative importance of each of the evaluation criteria for a given study: usually, a mid-term evaluation will rather focus on ques-tions of efficiency (while impact issues will not be of highest importance); ex post evaluations may rather focus on questions of impact and sustainability. In any case, conclusions need to be based on the analysis, and the link between recommenda-tions and conclusions needs to be clear. Recommendations should either concern the project in question or similar projects in the future, depending on the type of evaluation. A standard format for evaluation including explanatory comments can be found on the Internet17. However, the structure of an evaluation report should be determined primarily by its intended main purpose and its target groups/users. In general, the main sections of an evaluation report should be as follows:

Table 8: Report Outline for an Evaluation Report I - Executive Summary

It should be tightly drafted, and usable as a free-standing document. It should be short, not more than five pages. It should focus on the main analytical points, indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the cor-responding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows.

II - Main Text The main text should start with an introduction describing, first, the pro-ject or programme to be evaluated and, second, the evaluation objec-tives. The body or core of the report should follow the five evaluation criteria, describing the facts and interpreting or analysing them in accor-dance with the key questions pertinent to each criterion.

III – Conclusions and Recommenda-tions

These should be presented as a separate final chapter. Wherever possi-ble, for each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommen-dation. The key points of the conclusions will vary in nature but will often cover aspects of the evaluation criteria. The ultimate value of an evaluation depends on the quality and credibility of the recommendations offered. Recommendations should therefore be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible. Recommendations should be carefully targeted to the appropriate audi-ences at all levels.

IV – Annexes • Terms of Reference of the evaluation • Names of the evaluators and their companies (CVs should be

shown, but summarised and limited to one page per person) • Methodology applied for the study (phases, methods of data collec-

tion, sampling etc) • Logical Framework matrices (original and improved/updated) • Map of project area, if relevant • List of persons/organisations consulted • Literature and documentation consulted • Other technical annexes (e.g. statistical analyses) • 1-page DAC summary, following the format incorporated in the con-

tract and annexed to this document.

17 http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/index.htm

30

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/index.htm


2.8.7. Managing the Evaluation Process: An Overview Managing an evaluation exercise usually involves the following major tasks for the “evaluation manager”: 1. Identifying the need for an evaluation and selecting the topics/themes to be

evaluated. Major tasks

2. Designing the evaluation, including setting the TOR. 3. Drafting tender documents for the evaluation study and selecting the contractor

according to the existing rules. 4. Briefing the contractor and the parties involved, supporting the evaluation mis-

sion. 5. Ensuring the production of a high quality evaluation report and of the dissemina-

tion of evaluation findings and recommendations. 6. Supporting the use of evaluation findings. Depending on the focus, the expected outcome of an evaluation is a decision taken

to continue project implementation as planned or to re-orient, or, in the worst case, to stop, the project (mid-term evaluation);

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

concerning the question whether or not, in future, similar projects should be initiated, i.e. consider this kind of project again in subsequent programming or identification exercises (usually end-of-project or ex post evaluations); how to consider the outcomes of the evaluation in the definition of policies, co-operation strategies, and subsequent programming or identification exer-cises - in the case of sectoral, thematic or cross-sectoral evaluations.

What to do with the find-ings?

Evaluations are useless unless they are used. Therefore, the following key issues should be considered to ensure good feedback and subsequent use and integration of evaluation findings in future implementation, programming or identification: • Evaluation is a consultative process: consultation should be permanent to ensure

participation of relevant stakeholders, to enhance ownership of evaluation and its results, e.g. through:

Consultation during identification of subjects Consultation during preparation of TOR Briefing sessions Continuous discussion with and follow-up of external evaluators In-country debriefing Debriefing in Brussels

• Evaluation managers are responsible for keeping the services, delegations and other closely involved organisations appropriately informed on progress at each key stage of the evaluation.

• Evaluation needs appropriate diffusion of results, e.g. through seminars or work-shops. Usually evaluation findings are communicated and dispatched to the ma-jor stakeholders involved in the evaluated project. For evaluations managed by EuropeAid’s Evaluation Unit the latter provides summaries and complete reports to the public on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/pro-gram/index.htm).

Using work-shops for dissemination

• Evaluation needs good feedback mechanisms: Quality Support Groups check whether or not evaluation findings are taken into account in project proposals.

2.8.8. Evaluation Studies: Some Procedural Aspects Major activities for evaluation studies managed by the Evaluation Unit comprise the following - most of the activities are also relevant for studies managed by the other services, such as evaluations of projects or programmes: 1. First briefing meeting between consultants and EC services at EC headquarters,

including clarification of terms of reference.

31

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europe�aid/evaluation/pro�gram/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/europe�aid/evaluation/pro�gram/index.htm


2. Desk phase: The consultants establish direct contact with the services to under-take initial desk research, including collection of all relevant documentation and discussions with the services.

3. Preparation and submission of an Inception Report for approval by the evalua-tion manager (or other services), confirming proposed methodological approach for the field and reporting (or synthesis) phases. Where the programmes/projects to be visited by the evaluators were not identified from the outset but were de-cided on the basis of the inception report after consultation with the services and delegations, the evaluation manager informs the concerned services and dele-gations of the confirmed decisions as much in advance of the visits as possible, indicating any special needs and constraints.

4. The consultants contact delegations directly to finalise exact timing and (if still necessary) projects and organisations to visit, keeping the contract managers in-formed.

5. The consultants travel to the country/countries concerned, brief the delegation and carry out the field visits and any other remaining research and discussions.

6. Before departing from the field the consultants debrief the parties involved in the country on their provisional findings and recommendations.

7. The consultants prepare a draft final report, including key findings and recom-mendations.

8. The consultants give a detailed de-briefing to the evaluation manager and the other concerned services (which the contract manager invites) on their key find-ings and recommendations.

9. The consultants finalise their draft report and submit it to the Unit. 10. If satisfied with the basic professional quality of the draft and compliance with

the terms of reference, the contract manager circulates the draft report for com-ments to the concerned services and delegation, the latter forwarding it to part-ner country stakeholders as appropriate.

11. On receipt of all comments from services, delegation and other concerned bod-ies by the stipulated deadline, the Unit checks them and sends them to the con-sultants with its own comments for consideration and any necessary revision of the text.

12. After due consideration of the comments the consultants finalise their report and send it to the Unit which carries out a final check that comments have been rea-sonably considered, that the terms of reference have been respected and a good professional standard of accuracy, balance, penetration, realism and clear drafting maintained.

13. The Unit prepares a short (1-2 page) summary “EvInfo”, following the summary format laid down by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

14. The Unit distributes the report and EvInfo summary to all concerned services, delegations and other main stakeholders, normally under a cover note by a staff member of EuropeAid.

15. The Unit publishes the report and summary on the Internet. 16. The Unit initiates any agreed follow-up, feedback and dissemination procedures

(seminars, workshops, etc), in collaboration with the consultants, as appropriate. 17. For major evaluations, the unit prepares a ‘’fiche contradictoire’ showing the re-

sponses to the evaluation’s main recommendations from the services, delega-tion and, sometimes, other bodies closely involved; after clearance by the Direc-tor-General concerned, the fiche is also published on the Internet with the report and summary.

As mentioned above, in principle the same steps will apply to evaluations managed by others than the Evaluation Unit. For delegation-led evaluations for instance, the publication issue may not be that relevant, while the follow-up of the recommenda-tions may be.

32


3. THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH – A PROJECT DESIGN AND MANAGE-MENT TOOL

3.1. The Logical Framework Approach: An Introduction The core tool used within PCM for project planning and management is described as the Logical Framework Approach (LFA). The LFA is a technique to identify and analyse a given situation, and to define objectives and activities which should be undertaken to improve the situation. After programme and project preparation, the LFA is a key management tool for monitoring during implementation and evaluation. It provides the basis for Activity Schedules and the development of a monitoring sys-tem, and a framework for evaluation. It thus plays a crucial role in each phase of the cycle.

The LFA: Only a tool

Stakeholders should be involved into planning as much as possible. This requires teamwork and facilitation skills on part of project planners. To be used effectively, tools for technical, economic, social and environmental analysis support the LFA. The tools used within the Commission include Environmental Impact Assessment, Gender Impact Analysis, and Financial and Economic Analysis. The LFA starts with an analytical process and gives structure to present the results of this process. It makes it easier to: • set out systematically and logically the level of objectives of projects / pro-

grammes and the relationships between them; • indicate whether they have been achieved; • monitor the factors outside the scope of the project/programme which influence

its success. Figure 12: The Logical Framework

The Logical Framework Matrix

Means Cost

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

Intervention Logic


AssumptionsObjectively Verifiable Indicators

Pre-condi-tions

The main results of this process are summarised in a matrix (the Logical Framework Matrix or, more brief: the Logframe) with 16 boxes which shows the most important aspects of a project, summarising: • why a project is carried out (Intervention Logic) • what the project is expected to achieve (Intervention Logic and Indicators) • how the project is going to achieve it (Activities, Means) • which external factors are crucial for its success (Assumptions) • where to find the information required to assess the success of the project

(Sources of Verification)

33


• which means are required (Means) • what the project will cost (Cost) • which pre-conditions have to be fulfilled before the project can start (Pre-

conditions)

3.2. The Logical Framework Approach: Two Stages Projects are designed to address problems faced by beneficiaries. A properly planned project addressing the real problems of the beneficiaries cannot be achieved without an analysis of the existing situation. The LFA is an evolutionary, it-erative process starting with the thorough analysis of an existing situation as a basis for later planning. Drawing up a logframe has two stages, which are carried out pro-gressively during the Identification and Appraisal phases of the project cycle:

1. The Analysis Stage (Context / Situation Analysis), during which the existing situation is analysed to develop a vision of the ‘future desired situation’ and to select the strategies that will be applied to achieve it. The key idea is that pro-jects / programmes are designed to address problems faced by beneficiaries, both women and men, as well as to meet their needs and interests.

The LFA: Analysing and planning

There are four steps to the Analysis Phase: Stakeholder Analysis ⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

Problem Analysis (image of reality) Analysis of Objectives (image of an improved situation in the future) Analysis of Strategies (comparison of different options to address a given situation)

2. In the Planning Stage the results of the analysis are transcribed into a practi-cal, operational plan ready to be implemented. In this stage, the logframe is drawn up, and Activities and resources are defined and scheduled (see chap-ter 3.4.8, where tools for activity and resource scheduling are described).

Figure 13: The Logframe Approach

Logframe - defining the project/ programme structure, testing its internal logic, formulating objectives in measurable terms, defining means and cost (overall)Activity scheduling - deter-mining the sequence and depen-dency of activities; estimating their duration, setting milestones and assigning responsibilityResource scheduling - from the activity schedule, developing input schedules and a budget

The Logframe Approach

Iden

tify/

analy

se

PLANNING PHASEANALYSIS PHASE

Stakeholder Analysis - identifying & characterising major stakeholders, target groups & beneficiaries, defining whose problems will be addressed by a future interventionProblem analysis - identifying key problems, constraints and opportunities; determining cause and effect relationshipsAnalysis of objectives - developing objectives from the identified problems; identifying means to ends relationshipsStrategy analysis - identifying the different strategies to achieve objectives;selecting the most appropriate strategy(ies); determining the major objectives (overall objectives and project purpose)Se

lect t

heop

tion

Dedu

ct

Defin

e the

pr

ojec

t log

icSp

ecify

ing

and

oper

atio

nalis

ing

Iden

tify

stak

ehol

ders

34


Table 9: Terminology Used in the EC Context: Stakeholders, Beneficiaries, Target Group(s) and Project Partners?

1. Stakeholders: Individuals or institutions that may – directly or indirectly, positively or negatively – affect or be affected by the outcomes of projects or programmes.

2. Beneficiaries: Are those who benefit in whatever way from the implementation of the project. Distinction may be made between:

(a) Target group(s): The group / entity who will be directly positively affected by the pro-ject at the Project Purpose level;

(b) Final beneficiaries: Those who benefit from the project in the long term at the level of the society or sector at large, e.g. “children” due to increased spending on health and education, “consumers” due to improved agricultural production and marketing.

3. Project partners: Those who implement the projects in the country.

3.3. The Analysis Stage

3.3.1. Stakeholder Analysis Any individuals, groups of people, institutions or firms that may have a relationship with the project are defined as stakeholders. In order to maximize the social and in-stitutional benefits of the project and minimise its negative impacts, stakeholder analysis identifies all likely to be affected (either positively or negatively), and how. It is important that stakeholder analysis take place at an early stage in the identifica-tion and appraisal phases of a project.

Why consider stakeholders?

In all societies, there are differences in the roles and responsibilities of women and men, and in their access to and control over resources and their participation in de-cision-making. Everywhere, women and men have inequitable access to services (e.g. transport, health, education) and to opportunities in economic, social and politi-cal life. Gender inequalities hinder growth and harm development. Failure to ade-quately address gender issues can damage the effectiveness and sustainability of projects and programmes, even unintentionally exacerbate existing disparities. It is therefore vital to analyse the gender differences and inequalities and to take them into account in the intervention, its objectives, strategies and resource allocation. The stakeholder analysis must therefore systematically identify all gender differ-ences, as well as the specific interests, problems and potentials of women and men among the stakeholder groups.

35


3.3.1.1. How to Proceed? The following table provides an overview on the basic steps required to picture the situation.

Table 10: How to Analyse Stakeholders? 1. Start with identifying the various stakeholders, in a gender-differentiated way, who:

(a) might be affected by the project; (b) might affect the project; (c) might become useful project partners even though the project may also be im-

plemented without their contribution; (d) might become conflict partners as they may face the project as a threat for their

role and interests; (e) will anyway be involved in the project.

2. Categorise them according to their role, differentiating between men and women: (a) Is the stakeholder group (organisation, group of people, etc.) supposed to work in

the project, co-finance it, or benefit from the project? (b) Is it a supporting organisation? (c) Does it have a controlling function, etc.?

3. Characterise them from a social and organisational point of view, taking as well a gender perspective: (a) What are their social and economic characteristics? (b) How are they structured / organised? How are decisions made? (c) What is their status?

4. Analyse them with regard to expectations and relationships, taking again a gender perspective: (a) Identify their interests and expectations in the project (b) Analyse the links and relationships between the various stakeholder groups.

5. Characterise their sensitivity towards and respect of cross-cutting issues (gender equality, environmental protection, etc. - men and women) (a) Are they sensitive to these issues? (b) Do they consider impact of their tasks and activities on these issues?

6. Assess the potential, resources and capacities of the stakeholders (men and women): (a) What are the existing strengths on which the project could be build up? (b) What are the potential contributions on which the project could be build up? (c) What are existing deficiencies to be considered by the project?

7. Draw conclusions and make recommendations for the project; (a) How to take the group into account? (b) Which action to undertake? (c) How to deal with the group?

At a certain point during the analysis process a decision has to be taken on which objectives to adopt for the project, i.e. whose interests and views to give priority. Ideally a consensus should be found between the stakeholders involved - realisti-cally an attempt should be made to achieve a compromise between the different stakeholders’ views and interests, although at times it might be more suitable to concentrate on the priorities of core stakeholders rather than on a compromise, “no-body is really committed to”. When defining objectives it is important that it is agreed upon and made transparent which views and interests are given priority to. Attention has to be paid to potential conflicts arising from setting priorities. It should be care-fully considered where conflicts could arise, how they could be avoided or mediated, and what impact it would have on the project if the conflicts cannot be avoided or mediated.

In an ideal case the project / programme should be designed in a participatory plan-ning workshop, involving representatives of the main stakeholders, ensuring bal-anced representation of the interests of women and men. Whenever logframes are

Reviewing stakeholderanalysis regularly

36


re-considered during the life of a project, the original stakeholder analysis should be reviewed. Stakeholder analysis and problem analysis are closely connected: without people’s views on a problem, neither its nature, nor their needs, nor eventual solutions will become clear. The findings of the stakeholder analysis accompany the LFA process and can be pictured as a “transparency” that evolves throughout the early stages of the LFA project design process and should be used as an overlay, be it for further elabora-tion or cross-checking during other LFA stages.

Figure 14: Example of a Stakeholder Analysis

• raise their awareness on impact of polluted wastewater on region

• sensitise them concerning cost of environmental protection

• potentially willing and capable to pay for services

• very little awareness of the impact of waste & wastewater on ecosystem

• get access to wastewater network

• get somebody to collect waste

• most households discharge waste & wastewater into river, not aware of danger

house-holds

Implications and conclusions for the

project• possible action

required• how to deal with the

group

Potentials & deficiencies

• resource endowment

• knowledge, experience...

• potential contribution

Sensitivity to and respect of cross-

cutting issues (environment,

gender equality, etc.)

Interest & expectations• interests,

objectives...• Expectations

Characteristics• social, economic• gender

differentiation• structure, organ-

isation, status• Attitudes…

Stake-holder

• little awareness of the impact of wastewater on eco-system

• very much aware of impact of external pollution on their fishery grounds

• Benefits of fishery rather remain with men

etc. …

• raise their awareness on impact of polluted wastewater on region

• consider raising their image with project measures

• financial resources for new technologies

• Resource-saving potential through clean technologies

• maximise profits• interest in image;

strong resistance in case of profit losses

• important economic factor (strong lobby)

• no trade unions• strong lobby &

influence on government

industry x

• awareness raising among all fisherfolk

• Include pollution control measures

• familiar with river and watershed

• know pollution hot spots

• strong support for pollution control measures

• basis for living is maintained

• decrease in income is at least stopped

• resistance in case rights to catch fish are limited

• traditionally important source of income for communities

• small but active co-operative

fisherfolk

Stakeholder Analysis

3.3.1.2. Linking Stakeholder Analysis and the Subsequent Steps Stakeholder analysis and problem analysis are closely connected as part of the ini-tial “Situation Analysis”: without people’s views on a situation the problems and po-tentials will not become clear (stakeholder consultation) and without consultations of stakeholders on a situation their views (interest, potentials, etc.) will not become clear, without analysis of potentials, subsequent action by the project may not be feasible by the stakeholders.

Iro

Stakeholder analysis: point of continuous reference

All subsequent steps required to prepare a Logical Framework should be related to the stakeholder analysis, making it a point of continuous reference. Whenever the Logical Framework has to be revised the stakeholder analysis should be re-considered, as the landscape of stakeholders involved in a project evolves over time. Thus, stakeholder analysis is not an isolated analysis step, but a process.

3.3.2. Problem Analysis Problem analysis identifies the negative aspects of an existing situation and estab-lishes the ‘cause and effect’ relationships between the problems that exist. It in-volves three steps: dentifying the

eal problems f beneficiaries

1. Precise definition of the framework and subject of analysis; 2. Identification of the major problems faced by target groups and beneficiaries

(What is / are the problem/s? Whose problems?);

37


3. Visualisation of the problems in form of a diagram, called “problem tree” or “hier-archy of problems” to establish cause – effect relationships.

The analysis is presented in diagram form showing effects of a problem on top and its causes underneath. The analysis is aimed at identifying the real bottlenecks to which the stakeholders attach priority and seek to overcome. The value of this type of diagram is greatest if it is prepared at a workshop of those concerned (who there-fore know the situation), thus establishing a commonly shared view of the situation.

Table 11: How to Establish a Problem Tree? Step 1: Identify major problems existing within a given situation (brainstorming) Step 2: Select an individual starter problem Step 3: Look for related problems to the starter problem: Step 4: Establish hierarchy of cause and effects:

• Problems which are directly causing the starter problems are put below • Problems which are direct effects of the starter problem are put above

Step 5: Complete with all other problems accordingly Step 6: Connect the problems with cause-effect arrows Step 7: Review the diagram and verify its validity and completeness Note: 1. Problems have to be worded as negative situations 2. Problems have to be existing problems, not future ones or imagined ones 3. The position of the problem in the hierarchy does not indicate its importance 4. A problem is not the absence of a solution, but an existing negative situation

Once complete, the problem tree represents a comprehensive picture of the existing negative situation:

Figure 15: Problem Analysis

Problem Analysis

Causes

Effects

River water quality deteriorating

Wastewater treated in plants does not meet standards

Incentives for avoiding high pollution of waste water not operational

Bad quality of river fish Smaller catch for fisher folk

Living conditions of local people are worsened

Legal regulations are not adequate to prevent

discharge of wastewater

Attractiveness for tourism reduced

A procedure which allows to:1. Analyse an existing situation2. Identify key problems in this context (=negative existing situations)3. Establishing cause-effect relations between problems in a tree/hierarchy

Uncontrolled dumping of waste into river

Polluters are not controlled

Population is not aware of the danger of waste

dumping

Frequent diseases among fish consumers

Income of population reduced

Most households and factories discharge

wastewater directly into river

There are two common difficulties that are experienced during problem identification and analysis: inadequate problem specification, and the statement of ‘absent solu-tions’:

• Inadequate problem specification occurs when a problem is specified in insufficient detail so that it does not communicate the true nature of the problem. Statements such as ‘poor management’ need to be broken down so that we understand what the problem is, and can therefore analyse the

What is the problem?

38


understand what the problem is, and can therefore analyse the underlying causes - for example, the management problems might include poor financial control, late delivery of key services, etc.

• Absent solutions are problem statements that do not describe the current negative situation, but describe the absence of a desired situation. For exam-ple, ‘Lack of trained staff’ does not describe the specific problem (staff has in-sufficient or inappropriate skills), and risks biasing the intervention towards the absent solution (‘training’) when in fact it might be an issue of recruitment or personnel management.

3.3.3. Analysis of Objectives Analysis of objectives is a methodological approach employed to:

• Describe the situation in the future once the problems have been remedied, with the participation of representative parties;

• Verify the hierarchy of objectives; • Illustrate the means-ends relationships in a diagram.

The ‘negative situations’ of the problem tree are converted into solutions, expressed as ‘positive achievements’. For example, ‘agricultural production is low’ is converted into ‘agricultural production increased’. These positive achievements are in fact ob-jectives, and are presented in a diagram of objectives showing a means / ends hier-archy. This diagram provides a clear overview of the desired future situation. Some objectives may be unrealistic, so other solutions need to be found, or the attempt to solve them abandoned.

Picturing the future

Table 12: How to Establish an Objective Tree? Step 1: Reformulate all negative situations of the problems analysis into positive situa-

tions that are: • desirable • realistically achievable

Step 2: Check the means-ends relationships thus derived to ensure validity and completeness of the hierarchy (cause-effect relationships are turned into means-ends linkages)

Step 3: If necessary: • revise statements • add new objectives if these seem to be relevant and necessary to achieve

the objective at the next higher level • delete objectives which do not seem suitable / convenient or necessary

Once complete, the objective tree provides a comprehensive picture of the future desired situation, including activities necessary to achieve it (still formulated as ob-jectives):

39


Figure 16: Analysis of Objectives

Analysis of Objectives

Means

Ends

A technique to:1) describe the future situation that will be achieved by solving the problems2) identify potential solutions for a given situation3) turn the negative aspects into positive ones (desired, realistic)

River water quality improved

Standards are met by wastewater treatment

plants

Incentives for avoiding high pollution of waste

water are effective

River fish quality meets standards

Catch for fisher folk stabilised

Living conditions of local people improved

Legal regulations are improved and

followed

Attractiveness for tourism re-established

Uncontrolled dumping of waste into river reduced

Regular control of polluters effective

Awareness of population on the danger of waste

dumping created

Rate of diseases due to river fish consumption reduced

Income of population increased

Direct discharge of wastewater by households

and factories decreased

Connection of households and factories to sewer

network ensured

Wastewater treatment capacities

are increased

3.3.4. Analysis of Strategies The final step of the Analysis Stage involves selecting the strategy(ies) which will be used to achieve the desired objectives. Analysis of Strategies involves deciding what objectives will be included IN the project, and what objectives will remain OUT, and what the Project Purpose and Overall Objectives will be. This step requires: • Clear criteria for making the choice of strategies, • The identification of the different possible strategies to achieve the objectives. In the hierarchy of objectives, the different clusters of objectives of the same type are called strategies. One or more of them will be chosen as the strategy for future operation. The most relevant and feasible strategy is selected on the basis of a number of criteria to be agreed upon for each project individually. The following are possible criteria:

• Priorities of and attractiveness to target groups, including time perspective of

Developing criteria for selection ofalternatives

benefits • Resource availability:

external funds ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

counterpart / partner institutions’ funds expertise required / available

• Existing potentials and capacities (of target group/s) • Relevance for sector / agreed strategy between EC and partner country and rele-

vance for contribution to overarching policy objectives • Relationship and complementarity with other action • Social acceptability • Contribution to reduction of inequalities (e.g. gender) • Urgency

40


These criteria will be used to compare the alternative project approaches and choose one or more for future action. The criteria should be established by the con-cerned parties, including beneficiaries and target groups, and best during a planning workshop, including all these parties. The selected strategy will then appear in the first column of the Logical Framework.

Table 13: How to Do a Strategy Analysis? Step 1: Identify objectives you do not want to pursue (not desirable or not feasible) Step 2: Group objectives, to obtain possible strategies or components (clustering) Step 3: Assess which strategy/ies represents an optimal strategy according to the

agreed criteria Step 4: Determine Overall Objective(s) and Project Purpose

Depending on the scope and amount of work entailed, the selected clusters or strat-egy may form a ‘project-sized’ intervention, or a programme consisting of a number of projects.

Figure 17: Analysis of Strategies

Decision based on: urgency, budget, policy priorities, human resources,

social acceptability, ...

Waste Strategy Wastewater Strategy

OverallObjectives

Project / Programme

Purpose

Results

Analysis of Strategies

OUTIN

A technique to:1) identify possible solutions that could form a project strategy2) select one or more strategies3) decide upon the strategy to form the project


Standards are met by wastewater treatment

plants

Incentives for avoiding high pollution of waste

water are effective

River fish quality meets standards

Catch for fisher folk stabilised


Legal regulations are improved and

followed

Attractiveness for tourism re-established

Regular control of polluters effective

Awareness of population on the danger of waste

dumping created

Rate of diseases due to river fish consumption reduced

Income of population increased

Direct discharge of wastewater by households

and factories decreased

Connection of households and factories to sewer

network ensured

Wastewater treatment capacities

are increased

Uncontrolled dumping of waste into river reduced

3.4. The Planning Stage

3.4.1. The Logframe Matrix The main document of the LFA is the logical framework matrix. It is a way of pre-senting the substance of an intervention in a comprehensive form. The matrix has four columns and four rows: • The vertical logic identifies what the project intends to do, clarifies the causal

relationships and specifies the important assumptions and risks beyond the pro-ject manager’s control.

• The horizontal logic relates to the measurement of the effects of, and resources used by the project through the specification of key indicators, and the sources where they will be verified.

41


Figure 18: How to Read the Logframe

How to Read the Logframe

Vertical Logic Horizontal Logic

3.4.1.1. First Column: Intervention Logic The first column of the Logical Framework is called “Intervention Logic”. It sets out the basic strategy underlying the project: • Means (2nd column, 4th row) - both physical and non-physical - allow to carry out

Activities; • By carrying out these Activities, the Results are achieved; • Results collectively achieve the Purpose; • The Project Purpose contributes to the Overall Objectives.

Figure 19: Level of Objectives

Levels of ObjectivesIntervention LogicOverall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities Means

Physical and non physical means necessary to undertake activities

Tasks executed as part of the project to produce the project’s results

The results of undertaken activities

The project’s central objective in terms of the sustainable benefits for the target groups as part of the beneficiaries

High level objectives to which the project contributes

The four levels of objectives are defined as follows:

1. The Overall Objectives of the project / programme explain why it is important to society, in terms of the longer-term benefits to final beneficiaries and the wider benefits to other groups. They also help to show how the programme fits into the regional / sectoral policies of the government / organisations con-cerned and of the EC, as well as into the overarching policy objectives of EC co-operation. The Overall Objectives will not be achieved by the project

42


alone, it will only provide a contribution to the achievement of the Overall Ob-jectives.

2. The Project Purpose is the objective to be achieved by implementing the pro-ject. The Purpose should be defined in terms of sustainable benefits for the target group(s) as part of the beneficiaries. The Purpose should also express the equitable benefits for women and men among them. There should only be one Project Purpose per project. Having more than one Project Purpose could imply an excessively complex project, and hence possible management problems. Multiple Project Purposes may also indicate unclear or conflicting objectives. Clarifying and agreeing precisely what will define the project’s suc-cess is therefore a critical step in project design.

Only one Project Pur-pose!

3. Results are “products” of the Activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose of the project. They should be numbered.

4. Activities – the actions necessary to produce the Results. They summarise what will be undertaken by the project. They should be related to the Results by adequate numbering (Activity 1.1, 1.2….., 2.1, 2.2….).

3.4.1.2. Second Column: Indicators They are the detailed description18 of: • the Overall Objectives • the Project Purpose • the Results The physical and non-physical Means (inputs) necessary to carry out the planned Activities are placed in the ‘bottom’ row of the second column, i.e. there are no Indi-cators for Activities in the logical framework matrix. A rough estimation of the neces-sary resources should be presented in this box. The Activities are related to the dif-ferent Results. Indicators for Activities are usually defined during the preparation of an Activity Schedule specifying the Activities in more detail.

3.4.1.3. Third Column: Sources of Verification Sources of Verification indicate where and in what form information on the achieve-ment of the Overall Objectives, the Project Purpose and the Results can be found (described by the Objectively Verifiable Indicators). The cost and sources of financing (EC, Government, etc.) are placed in the bottom row of the third column.

3.4.1.4. Fourth Column: Assumptions Assumptions are external factors that influence or even determine the success of a project, but lie outside its control. They are the answer to the question: “What exter-nal factors are not influenced by the project, but may affect its implementation and long-term sustainability?” Pre-conditions differ from Assumptions in that they must be met before a project can commence; often these concern back-up measures by the partners. For example, without the implementation of certain policy measures by the partner, the project ra-tionale may be undermined. Compared to the other columns, the ‘Assumptions’ column is lowered by one level and there are no Assumptions at the level of the Overall Objectives.

18 They describe the project’s objectives in terms of quantity, quality, target group(s), time, place. A good OVI should be SMART, i.e.: Specific: measure what it is supposed to measure – Measurable and – Available at an acceptable cost – Relevant with regard to the objective con-cerned, and cover it – Time-bound.

43


The vertical logic in the logframe, i.e. the relationship between the 1st and the 4th column, works as follows: • once the Pre-conditions are met, the Activities can start up; • once the Activities have been carried out, and if the Assumptions at this level

hold true, Results will be achieved; • once these Results and the Assumptions at this level are fulfilled, the Project Pur-

pose will be achieved; • once the Purpose has been achieved and the Assumptions at this level are ful-

filled, contribution to the achievement of the Overall Objectives will have been made by the project.

Figure 20: The Vertical Logic

The Vertical LogicIntervention Logic

Assumptions

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

Pre-condi-tions

+

+

+

Assumptions

Assumptions

Assumptions

3.4.2. How to Identify the Intervention Logic? Once agreement can be reached among stakeholders on what should be the Project Purpose, then the objectives that lie within the scope of the project can be trans-posed from the objective tree into the matrix. The objectives selected for inclusion in the project are set into the first column of the Logframe. There are four levels of ob-jectives. It is important to ensure that the levels of objectives are correct.

44


Table 14: From Strategy Analysis to Intervention Logic 1. Identification of the Purpose

Select from the hierarchy of objectives the objective that describes a sustainable benefit to the target groups, including both women and men. To do so, it is helpful to start at the bottom of the tree. By moving higher, objectives that reflect sustainable benefits can be identified.

2. Identification of the Overall Objectives Select from the objective tree one or more objectives at the top which describe long term bene-fits for society or the sector, to which the project will contribute. 3. Identification of Results

Select from the objective tree the objectives that – by the “means-to-ends” logic – achieve the Purpose, and are thus Results. Add other Results that also further the achievement of the Purpose. These can be identified following a supplementary analysis of the opportunities and risks of the situation in question.

4. Transfer of objectives to the column Intervention Logic in the logframe (as OO, PP and R) 5. Identification of Activities

• Select from the objectives tree the objectives that – by the “means-to-ends” – produce the Results and translate them into Activities. Activities are formulated with the verb in front: “Organise training sessions”, “Co-ordinate with major stakeholders”, etc.

• Add other Activities identified after supplementary analysis of the opportunities and risks of the situation in question, e.g. through additional studies, through discussions with stakeholders (e.g. in a planning workshop), paying attention to the specific inter-ests of under-represented groups.

6. The means-ends relationships are again analysed, and additional Results and Activities may be incorporated, as denoted below by the boxes with an asterisk.

Note: • Add only main Activities in the Logframe • Relate them to the Results by attributing numbers to each Activity (Activity 1.1 is related to

Result 1, Activity 4.3 to Result 4.). This helps maintaining means to ends relationships.

Figure 21: Building the Logframe: Specifying the Intervention Logic

Intervention Logic



OverallObjectives

Results

Activities

Project/ Programme Purpose

Means Cost

Pre-conditions



1.1 Analyse environmental investments of companies

1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies1.3 Design incentives1.4 Test and adapt incentives1.5 Provide incentives1.6 Launch improvement of legal

regulations and monitor their effectiveness

1.7 Connect households and factories

1. Direct discharge of wastewater by households and factories decreased

Building the Logframe: Specifying the Intervention Logic

45


3.4.2.1. Using the Logical Framework to Plan Complex Interventions: In-terlocking Logframes

Complex interventions comprising a number of components or projects are usually called “Programmes”. These may be sector-wide programmes, nation-wide pro-grammes or regional programmes with a number of concerned sectors. The LFA principles equally apply to this type of intervention, i.e. that to properly plan them it will be necessary to run through the Analysis and Planning Stage. In principle, each Logical Framework can be worked out in sub-logframes. Each of these describes components of the “master” Logical Framework on a more detailed level.

Figure 22: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component

Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component

ProgrammeOverall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

Project Component

Overall Objective

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

Overall Objective

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

The system of sub-dividing a “master” Logical Framework is useful to show the co-herence of components in a programme or project and to develop each component in more detail. However, when preparing interlocking logframes, we should be clear about what ex-actly we mean by “Purpose” or “Result” and who the target groups and beneficiaries are.

46


Table 15: Levels of Intervention: From Programme to Component Sector Programme Roads Maintenance Project Private Sector Component Overall Objectives: Country competitiveness on international markets improved

Investments into agricultural export crops increased

Food supply stabilised Project Purpose: Overall Objectives Road network meets traffic demands Road network meets traffic demands Results: Project Purpose: Overall Objectives 1. Heavy-vehicle overload reduced on roads

2. Roads are upgraded and rehabilitated 3. Road network is expanded 4. Roads are better maintained 4. Roads are better maintained 4. Roads are better maintained 5. Performance of MOT improved Activities: Results: Project Purpose: 4.1 Review and improve approach to maintenance

4.1 Approach to maintenance reviewed and improved

4.2 Involve private sector more in mainte-nance

4.2 Private sector involvement in mainte-nance effective

4.2 Private sector involvement in maintenance effective

4.3 Improve road coverage by mainte-nance teams

4.3 Coverage of roads by maintenance teams improved

4.4 Increase effectiveness of maintenance 4.4 Effectiveness of maintenance teams increased

4.5 Improve ownership of feeder roads network maintenance by village/communal teams

4.5 Ownership of feeder roads network maintenance by village/communal teams improved

Activities: Results: 4.1.1 ….. 4.1.1 ….. 4.2.1 Screen competences of private sec-

tor maintenance firms 4.2.1 Competences of private sector maintenance firms screened

4.2.2 Devise and implement capacity building measures for private firms

4.2.2 Capacity building measures for private firms devised and im-plemented

4.2.3 Provide incentives for company creation

4.2.3 Incentives for company crea-tion provided

4.2.4 Tender maintenance works 4.2.4 Maintenance works tendered 4.2.5 Monitor works regularly 4.2.5 Works regularly monitored 4.3.1 …… Activities: 4.1.1.1 … 4.2.1.1 List existing firms 4.2.1.2 Devise survey 4.2.1.3 Implement survey 4.2.1.4 Draw conclusions 4.2.2.1 ….

47


The following should provide guidance in defining the different levels of objectives in a nation-wide sector programme: • Worldwide, supra-regional, nation-wide benefits beyond the scope of the pro-

gramme at the level of the Overall Objectives, referring to the overarching policy objectives of the EC; Finding the

right level of objectives

• Sustainable benefits for all target groups and beneficiaries at national and overall sectoral level, including equitable benefits for women and men, at the level of the Purpose;

• Sustainable benefits for segments of target groups at national or regional sectoral level, at the level of the Results.

Figure 23: Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide Sector Programme

Levels of Objectives in a Nation-wide Sector Programme

Intervention Logic

Overall Objectives

Project Purpose

Results

Activities

What does it mean for a sector-programme?

Products of sub-sector programmes (results of sub-sector programmes)

Sustainable benefits for segmentsof target groups at national or sectoral level (purpose of sub-sector progammes)

Sustainable benefits for all target groups at national and sectoral level, including equitable benefits for women and men

Nation-wide benefits (or beyond) beyond the scope of the programme to which it contributes

An example from the health sector

1. Nation-wide functioning health care services established at schools

2. Awareness created among children and parents about health care measures

3. Quality and efficiency of secondary health care improved for school children

Health status of school children improved in A-land

Health status of population improved

• Mortality rates reduced• Productivity increased

The objectives of one of the possible projects within the nation-wide sector pro-gramme should correspond to the following levels of objectives described in Chapter 3.4.1.1: • sustainable benefits for all target groups and beneficiaries at national and overall

sectoral level, at the level of the Overall Objectives, referring, where applicable, to the overarching policy objectives of the EC, including gender equality;

• sustainable benefits for segments of target groups at national or regional sectoral level, including equitable benefits for women and men, at the level of the Pur-pose;

• “products” of Activities undertaken (ends) at national or regional sectoral level, at the level of the Results;

This, again, shows that the Logical Framework is a useful tool for both project plan-ning and management, from large sector programmes to small interventions, and provided it is not used as a ‘blueprint’ only. As a dynamic tool, logframes have to be re-assessed and revised as the project itself develops and circumstances change.

Re-assess logframes during Im-plementation In addition, logframes and the system of cascading logframes can be applied to

Programming, too. The EC “Guidelines for implementation of the Common Frame-work for Country Strategy Papers” foresee to formulate “Specific Objectives” (= Pur-pose) and expected “Results” for each area of co-operation including key domains for conditionalities and main performance and a limited number of key outcome indi-

Logframes in Progamming

cators. These indicators must relate to developments that are measurable in the short / medium term. The guidelines emphasise that, if there is a PRSP process un-der way, the indicators must correspond to those developed in that framework.

48


Results and Purpose of a sector within the CSP / NIP will be achieved through im-plementation of projects. This means that either one project alone or several pro-jects together will achieve the Results, and then all projects together will achieve the “Specific objectives” of an area of co-operation. At this level, EC consensus is that there may be several “Specific objectives” and not only one, as recommended for all subsequent phases. The system of cascading logframes is simply an aid to improve structuring of inter-ventions. It will make planning and management of implementation (including alloca-tion of responsibilities) of both simple and very complex interventions easier. The system allows breaking down such interventions to a level where it can be seen what is going to be done. This will as well increase transparency and accountability, especially when dealing with “soft” sectors (such as education, training, institutional strengthening…). When breaking down complex programmes into more manageable bits, the follow-ing should be kept in mind: Preparing

complex log-frames: What to consider

• Keep wording and complexity of objectives as simple as possible. • Avoid putting means-ends relationships into statements of objectives: … due

to…; or: … through… (both applies to all kinds of logframes). • Use the number of objectives levels that allows you to clearly structure the inter-

vention (it may be 3, but also 5). In doing so, maintain means-ends relationships between the levels in a way that levels within the hierarchy of objectives are not omitted and that e.g. better roads maintenance (Result 4 of the sector pro-gramme) is not due to an objective located several levels below, e.g. the screen-ing of competences (Activity 4.2.1).

• Stop latest at a level where operational planning / activity scheduling would start (see Activities of “Private Sector Component” above).

3.4.3. How to Identify Assumptions? It will have become apparent during the Analysis Stage that the project alone cannot achieve all the objectives identified in the objective tree. Once a strategy has been selected, objectives not included in the Intervention Logic and other external factors remain. These are crucial for the achievement of Results, Project Purpose and Overall Objectives, but lie outside the project’s its control. These conditions must be met if the project is to succeed, and are included as Assumptions in the fourth col-umn of the Logframe.

Beware of 'kil-ler' assump-tions!

The probability and significance of external conditions being met should be esti-mated as part of assessing the degree of risk of the project. Some will be critical to project success, and others of marginal importance. A useful way of assessing the importance of Assumptions is with the following flowchart. Once Assumptions have been identified, they are stated in terms of the desired situation. In this way they can be verified and assessed.

49


Figure 24: Assessment of Assumptions

Assessment of Assumptions

Will it be realised?

Almost certainly

Likely

Unlikely

Do not include in logframe

Include as an assumption

Is it possible to redesign the project in order to influence the external factor?

Yes No

Do not include in logframe

Is the external factor important?

Redesign the project by adding activities or results; reformulate the

Project Purpose if necessary The project is not feasible

NoYes

Table 16: How to Identify Assumptions?

1. Identify in the hierarchy of objectives such objectives that are not covered by the se-lected strategy but important for the success of the project

2. Place them as external factors at the appropriate level of the logframe 3. Identify other external factors not included in the hierarchy which must be fulfilled to

achieve the Overall Objective, the Project Prpose and the Results 4. Identify necessary Pre-conditions which have to be met in order to start with project

Activities 5. Assess the importance of the external factors by using the assessment chart. De-

pending on the conclusions: • Take out the external factor (almost certainly) • Include the external factor as an Assumption (likely) • Redesign the project (unlikely)

6. Check the Intervention Logic and Assumptions on completeness beginning with the Pre-conditions, to see whether the Intervention Logic is indeed logical and overlooks nothing

50


Figure 25: Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions

Intervention Logic



OverallObjectives

Results

Activities


Means Cost

Pre-conditions




1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies1.3 Design incentives1.4 Test and adapt incentives1.5 Provide incentives1.6 Launch improvement of legal

regulations and monitor their effectiveness

1.7 Connect households and factories


•Upstream water quality remains stable

Building the Logframe: Completing Assumptions

Construction permission obtained

•Market demand for y-fish remains at least stable•Tourists are informed about the improved situation

Use of sewerage systems socially acceptable

•Uncontrolled dumping of waste into river remains at least stable

3.4.4. Checking Quality Factors19 A project can be said to be sustainable when it continues to deliver benefits to the project / programme target groups for an extended period after the main part of the donor assistance has been completed. In the past it has been found that projects have failed to deliver sustainable benefits because they did not take sufficient ac-count of a number of critical success factors. Quality is not an issue only to be con-sidered shortly before the end of a project, but should be kept in mind from the plan-ning stage onwards.

-
Sustainability starts with project design
3.4.4.1. What are Quality Factors? Experience has demonstrated that the longer-term sustainability of project benefits depends on the following factors:

1. Ownership by beneficiaries – the extent to which target groups and benefici-aries of the project / programme (including men and women) have partici-pated in its design and are involved so that it can have their support and be sustainable after the end of the EC financing.

2. Policy support – the quality of the relevant sector policy, and the extent to which the partner government has demonstrated support for the continuation of project services beyond the period of donor support.

3. Appropriate technology – whether the technologies applied by the project can continue to operate in the longer run (e.g. availability of spare parts; suffi-ciency of safety regulations; local capabilities of women and men in operation and maintenance).

4. Socio-cultural issues – how the project will take into account local socio-cultural norms and attitudes, and which measures have been taken to ensure

19 Here, “Quality” replaces the DAC term “Sustainability” to emphasise that quality is an issue that applies from the beginning of project / programme design, whereas sustainability per se oc-curs, or not, after the life of a project / programme.

51


that all beneficiary groups will have appropriate access to project services and benefits during and after implementation.

5. Gender equality – how the project will take into account the specific needs and interests of women and men and will lead to sustained and equitable ac-cess by women and men to the services and infrastructures, as well as con-tribute to reduced gender inequalities in the longer term.

6. Environmental protection – the extent to which the project will preserve or damage the environment and therefore support or undermine achievement of longer term benefits20.

7. Institutional and management capacity – the ability and commitment of the implementing agencies to deliver the project / programme, and to continue to provide services beyond the period of donor support.

8. Economic and financial viability – whether the incremental benefits of the pro-ject / programme outweigh its cost, and the project represents a viable long-term investment.21

The substance and relative importance of these factors will depend on the context and on the specific features of the project / programme. Consideration of these is-sues may lead to changes in the project design.

3.4.4.2. How to Plan for Quality A project can be said to have sustainable impact when the target group continue to derive benefits for an extended period after the main period of donor assistance has ended. Having established the Intervention Logic (first column) and the Assumptions (fourth column), the preparation of the logframe continues with a review (questions) concerning the project / programme’s quality. Table 18 provides the generic ques-tions that should be answered satisfactorily to enhance quality. The procedure for incorporating quality into the project design is as follows:

Table 17: How to Check for Quality? 1. Identify which Activities and Results will have to be sustained beyond the period of EC

funding, enabling the target group to derive benefits in the longer term. 2. Formulate relevant questions concerning each quality factor. These questions should be

clarified by the concerned parties (stakeholders, target groups, Delegation, EC services, proposing organisation), or appear in the Terms of Reference for a subsequent study, e.g. in the feasibility study.

3. Scrutinise the Project Purpose, Results, Activities and Assumptions in the light of these questions.

4. On the basis of the answers: • rethink or add Results, Activities, Assumptions or Pre-conditions, • commission further studies to delve more fully into the issues, • formulate recommendations for implementation.

20 The most common tool for integrating environment into the different phases of the pro-ject cycle is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Details about this procedure can be found on http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_integ/env_inte-gration_manual/index.htm. 21 The Financial and Economic Analysis Manual (EC, 1997) provides a comprehensive methodology to be used at the different phases of the project cycle. Details about this proce-dure can be found on the EuropeAid Intranet (working tools).

52

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_integ/env_inte�gration_manual/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_integ/env_inte�gration_manual/index.htm


Table 18: Basic Questions to be Addressed to Ensure Sustainability 1. Ownership by beneficiar-

ies What evidence is there that all target groups, including both women and men, support the project? How actively are and will they be involved / consulted in project preparation and implementation? How far do they agree and commit them-selves to achieve the objectives of the project?

2. Policy support Is there a comprehensive, appropriate sector policy by the Government? Is there evidence of sufficient support by the responsible authorities to put in place the necessary supporting policies and resource allocations (human, financial, material) during and following implementation?

3. Appropriate technology Is there sufficient evidence that the chosen technologies can be used at affordable cost and within the local conditions and capabilities of all types of users, during and after imple-mentation?

4. Environmental protection Have harmful environmental effects which may result from use of project infrastructure or services been adequately identified? Have measures been taken to ensure that any harmful effects are mitigated during and after project imple-mentation?

5. Socio-cultural issues Does the project take into account local socio-cultural norms and attitudes, also those of indigenous people? Will the pro-ject promote a more equitable distribution of access and benefits?

6. Gender equality Have sufficient measures been taken to ensure that the pro-ject will meet the needs and interests of both women and men and will lead to sustained and equitable access by women and men to the services and infrastructures, as well as contribute to reduced gender inequalities in the longer term?

7. Institutional and manage-ment capacity

Is there sufficient evidence that the implementing authorities will have the capacity and resources (human and financial) to manage the project effectively, and to continue service delivery in the longer term? If capacity is lacking, what measures have been incorporated to build capacity during project implementation?

8. Economic and financial viability

Is there sufficient evidence that the benefits of the project will justify the cost involved, and that the project represents the most viable way to addressing the needs of women and men in the target groups?

This check is an important part of project design, and not taking it into account could undermine both the feasibility and the sustainability of the project.

53


Figure 26: Building the Logframe: Planning for Quality

Building the Logframe: Planning for QualityIntervention

LogicSources of Verification


OverallObjectives

Results

Activities


Means Cost

Pre-conditions




1.2 Identify relevant clean technologies1.3 Design incentives1.4 Test and adapt incentives1.5 Provide incentives1.6 Launch improvement of legal regulations

and monitor their effectiveness1.7 Connect households and factories1.8 Raise awareness of households and

industry concerning impact of wastewater1.9 Train municipalities in maintenance of

wastewater system





•Upstream water quality remains stable•Uncontrolled dumping of waste into river remains at least stable

3.4.5. How to Identify Indicators (OVIs) and Sources of Verification (SOV)? Indicators (“Objectively Verifiable Indicators”) describe the project’s objectives in op-erationally measurable terms (quantity, quality, target group(s), time, place). Speci-fying OVIs helps checking the viability of objectives and forms the basis of the pro-ject monitoring system. OVIs should be measurable in a consistent way and at an acceptable cost.

What are OVIs and SOV?

Sources of Verification are documents, reports and other sources providing informa-tion that makes it possible to check the Indicators. A good OVI should be SMART: • Specific: measure what it is supposed to measure • Measurable and • Available at an acceptable cost • Relevant with regard to the objective concerned • Time-bound In addition, Indicators should be independent of each other, each one relating to only one objective in the Intervention Logic, i.e. to one of the Overall Objectives, to the Project Purpose or to one Result. Indicators at the level of the Results should not be a summary of what has been stated at the Activity level, but should describe the consequences. Often, it is necessary to establish several indicators for one ob-jective, if the single indicator does not provide a full picture of the change expected. Together, these will provide reliable information on the achievement of objectives. At the same time, the trap of including too many indicators should be avoided.

Indicators should be in-dependent

Also, the measurement and interpretation of OVIs should be identical if determined by different persons, i.e. that different persons using the indicator would obtain the same measurements. This is more easily done for quantitative measures than for those that aim at measuring qualitative change. OVIs should already be defined dur-ing identification and appraisal, but they often need to be specified in greater detail during implementation when additional information is available and the demands for

Define indica-tors as early as possible

54


monitoring become apparent. Care should be taken to ensure that the OVIs for the Project Purpose - the project’s “centre of gravity” - do in practice incorporate the no-tion of ‘sustainable benefits for the target group’.

Figure 27: Indicators: An Example

Indicators: An ExampleObjective: Pollution load of wastewater discharged into the

Blue river is reducedSelect the indicator: Concentration of heavy metal compounds

(Pb, Cd, Hg)Define the targets:

• Define the quantity: Concentration of heavy metal compounds (Pb, Cd, Hg) is reduced by 75% compared to year x levels …

• Define the quality: ... to meet the limits for irrigation water ...• Define the target group: ... , used by the farmers of Blue

village, ...• Define the place : ... in the Blue river section of the District ...• Determine the time: ... 2 years after the project has started

In fact, the role of Indicators is not limited to project monitoring and evaluation. They also play a vital role in all phases of the project cycle (see figure below).

Figure 28: Indicators and the Project Cycle

Indicators & the Project CycleSectoral indicators provide basis for performance monitoring of co-operation programmes

Final selection of indicators, identification of key assumptions, & development of budgetprovide the basis for developing an M&E plan

Monitoring compares planned vs. actualachievement of targets (budget, activity schedule, results) to identify necessary remedial action

Discussion of objectives & possible indicators helps to identify stakeholder interests, & build ownership

Indicators & results-based budget provide basis for assessing and justifying allocation of resources and for comparing cost to anticipated benefits

Evaluation comparing achievements and indicators enables project success and sustainability prospects to be assessed, & lessons to be learned

a

When Indicators are formulated, the Source of Verification should be specified at the same time. This will help to test whether or not the Indicators can be realistically measured at the expense of a reasonable amount of time, money and effort. The SOV should specify:

How will we know what is being achieved?

• the format in which the information should be made available (e.g. progress re-ports, project accounts, project records, official statistics etc.)

• who should provide the information

55


• how regularly it should be provided. (e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.) Sources outside the project should be assessed for accessibility, reliability and rele-vance. The work and cost of collecting information to be produced by the project it-self should also be estimated and adequate means provided. There is often a direct relationship between the complexity of the SOV (i.e. ease of data collection and analysis) and its cost. If an OVI is found too expensive or complicated to collect, it should be replaced by a simpler, cheaper and often indirect (proxy) OVI: e.g. instead of conducting a detailed survey on incomes of farm households, the changes of household expenditure may be assessed, e.g. sales of veterinary suppliers and pharmacies, or of tools or household goods (clothes, energy saving stoves, etc.) might be counted.

Table 19: How to Define OVIs and to Select SOV? How to define OVIs?

1. Specify for each Result, the Project Purpose, and the Overall Objectives: • the quantity: how much? • the quality: what? • the target group: who? • the time / period: starting when and for how

long? • the place: where? Note: Indicators concerning the Overall Objectives tend to be more qualitative than those applicable to the Project Purpose and the Results, which have more quantitatively measurable components.

2. Check whether the Indicators or Indicatorss describe the Overall Objectives, Purpose or Results accurately. If not, other Indicatorss should be added or new ones found.

3. Care should be taken to ensure that the OVIs for the Project Purpose - the project’s “centre of gravity” - do in practice incorporate the notion of ‘sustainable benefits for the target group’.

How to choose SOV? 1. Decide what Sources of Verification are needed to obtain the information on OVIs. 2. Identify which sources are to be collected, processed and kept within the project, and

which are outside (existing sources). 3. Check sources outside the project to ensure that:

(a) their form/presentation is appropriate; (b) they are specific enough; (c) they are reliable; (d) they are accessible (where and when); (e) the cost of obtaining the information are reasonable.

4. Replace OVls for which no suitable sources can be found by others. Note: Use existing resources as much as possible to avoid additional cost, time and effort to be deployed.

56


Figure 29: Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators and Sources of Verification

Building the Logframe: Specifying Indicators and Sources of Verification

Intervention Logic



OverallObjectives

Results

Activities


Means Cost

Pre-conditions







wastewater system






•The income generated by the catch of y-fish is increased by 30 % by 2003•Tourism revenues increased by 30% by 2004

•Socio-economic Survey report of the Ministry of Economic affairs

•Rate of diseases due to river fish consumption reduced by 80 % until 2003•Catch of y-fish is increased by 20% until 2002, while maintaining stock level

•Regional hospital and medical statistics•Reports of River authority and co-operatives

•70 % of wastewater produced by factories and 80% of wastewater produced by households is treated in plants by 2002

Survey report of Municipalities

3.4.6. How to Identify Means and Cost? The boxes “Means” and “Cost” replace OVIs and SOV at the level of Activities. OVIs and SOV are thus not specified for Activities in the Logframe, but may be specified later when preparing an Activity Schedule. Means are physical and non-physical resources (often referred to as “Inputs”) that are necessary to carry out the planned Activities and manage the project. A distinc-tion can be drawn between: human resources and material resources. Cost are the translation into financial terms of all the identified resources (Means). They should be presented in a standardised format, which will specify the contribu-tion of the EC, the Government and any other party, such as target groups and beneficiaries. The Activities should therefore be worked out sufficiently to enable es-timates of the necessary physical and non-physical means. This will include the means and cost required for management support activities. An area for particular attention is the cost of collecting data on OVIs. This estimate should be completed at the end of the appraisal phase.

Table 20: How to Establish Means and Cost? 1. Work out the human, material and financial means necessary to carry out the planned Activi-

ties under each Result. Classify them according to the requirements of the co-operation mechanism.

2. Work out the human, material and financial means needed for management and support activi-ties not included in the Logical Framework (e.g. building of a co-ordination office, administra-tive and accounting staff, etc.). For transparency reasons, you may just summarise all these activities as a reminder at the bottom of the logframe. You can then identify the means re-quired and link them to the respective cost.

3. Calculate the cost of the resources thus established and shared among the financing partners; prepare the total budget.

4. Classify the Cost by budget origin: EC, Government, target group or other donors. 5. List a summary of Means in the 2nd column behind the Activities in the Logical Framework and

summarise the cost by budget origin in the 3rd column behind the Activities.

57


3.4.7. Final Quality Check of the Logframe Once the Means and Cost have been established, the logical framework matrix is complete. It should now be reviewed one last time to check, whether:

• the vertical logic is complete and accurate; • Indicators and Sources of Verification are accessible and reliable; • the Pre-conditions are realistic; • the Assumptions are realistic and complete; • the risks are acceptable; • the likelihood of success is reasonably strong; • quality issues have been taken into account and, where appropriate, trans-

lated into Activities, Results or Assumptions; • the benefits justify the cost; • additional studies are needed.

This check should be carried out first at the end of the planning workshop during appraisal, but it can also be carried out independently by persons other than those who drew up the Logical Framework, particularly EC and partner country officials. The following figure shows what a completed logframe for the example project might look like.

Figure 30: Building the Logframe: A Completed Logframe

Building the Logframe: A Completed LogframeIntervention

LogicSources of Verification


OverallObjectives

Results

Activities


Means

A: Technical expertise, 20 PMB: InvestmentC: MaintenanceD: ….Total

Cost (‘000 €)EC Gvt. Other Total400 4001000 400 200 1600……..

3000 1000 600 4600

Pre-conditions







wastewater system






•The income generated by the catch of y-fish is increased by 30 % by 2003•Tourism revenues increased by 30% by 2004

•Socio-economic Survey report of the Ministry of Economic affairs

•Rate of diseases due to river fish consumption reduced by 80 % until 2003•Catch of y-fish is increased by 20% until 2002, while maintaining stock level

•Regional hospital and medical statistics•Reports of River authority and co-operatives

•70 % of wastewater produced by factories and 80% of wastewater produced by households is treated in plants by 2002

Survey report of Municipalities

58


3.4.8. Using the Logical Framework to Develop Activity and Resource Sched-ules

The Logical Framework for a project describes often quite broadly, what Activities are to be undertaken. After the logframe matrix has been completed, usually during the appraisal phase, further planning can take place to add operational detail. An Activity Schedule is a method of presenting the activities of a project, which iden-tifies their logical sequence and any dependencies that exist between them, and provides a basis for allocating management responsibility for completing each Activ-ity. With the Activity Schedule prepared, further specification of Means and schedul-ing of cost can start. Both Activity and Resource Schedules ought to be drafted dur-ing the feasibility study. Detailed information about net recurrent cost implications of the project may then lead to reformulation of the scope and ambition of the project. The Overall Activity Schedule is updated and detailed Activity and Resource Sched-ules are to be prepared during the first months of project implementation (inception period).

Figure 31: Activity and Resource Schedules

ESTAB LISH M EN T O F P LAN N IN G U N IT, M IN ISTR Y O F TR AN SP O R T

ACTIVITIE S YEAR 1Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12

1.1 Establish Planning Unit

1.1.1 Set up off ices and equipment

1.1.2 Identify and rec ruit counterpart staff

1.2 Liaise with relevant depar tments 1 2 3

1.2.1 Convene steering committee

1.2.2 Hold regular steering committee meetings

1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministersand senior civil servants

1.3 Undertake planning studies 4 5 6 7 8 9

1.3.1 Agree with government priority areas for planning studies

1.3.2 Convene working groups to undertake planning studies

1.3.3 Undertake planning studies jointly with government

1.4 Provide government with strategy plans 10

1.4.1 Make recommendations to government

1.4.2 Assist government in the development of aframework for polic y formulation

Milestones1 Membership of PSC includes senior representatives from all relevant Departments2 Terms of reference and schedule for PSC agreed3 First 3 briefing meetings run and attended as planned4 W ritten agreement of priority areas5 W orking groups convened and schedules of work agreed6 1st drafts of studies circulated7 Comments received from relevant Ministries & departments8 Studies completed9 W orking groups agree on recommendations10 Strategy recommendations submitted to government

EXPE RTS TIME REQUIRED (days)

PM OM E1 E2 E3 PM OM E1 E2 E3

L 10

L 10

L S 1 3

L S 8 16

L S 20 20

L 2

L L L 10 10 10

L L L 40 40 40

L S S S 10 5 5 5

L S S S 5 10 10 10

KE Y Total 56 49 65 65 65

PM = Project Manager OM = Office Manager E1 = Economist 1 E2 = Policy Spec ialist E3 = Economist 2

L = Lead role S = Support role

Activity and Resource Schedules

Logframe

Results-based Activity Schedule Results-based Resource Schedule��

��

ES T A BLIS HM ENT O F A P LA NNING UNIT, M INIS T RY OF TR ANS P ORT

Ref A CTIV ITIE S /INP UTS U nit Q uant ity per p lann ing pe riod Cost Funding C os t CodesCos ts per planning period

P rojec tA nnua l

R ec urrent1s t qt r 2nd qt r 3rd qt r 4th qt r per unit s ourc e Donor Govt 1st qt r 2nd qt r 3rd qt r 4th qt r To tal Cos ts

AC T IV IT IES1.1 Esta blish P la nning U n it

E Q UIP M E NTCom puters no . 2 2 1.000 3,4 A /1.3 2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 Fax m odem no . 1 500 3,4 A /1.3 500 - - - 500 Offic e furn itu re lum p 1 3.000 3,4 A /1.3 3.000 - - - 3.000

S A LA RIE S & A LL O W A NC E S (LOC A L)Counterparts mm 4 4 4 4 200 5,2 B /2.1 800 800 800 800 3.200 3.200 Offic e s taff m m 2 3 3 3 100 5,2 B /2.1 200 300 300 300 1.100 1.100

E TC.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

3.4.8.1. Preparing Activity Schedules All information in an Activity Schedule can be summarised in graphical format. This is called a Gantt Chart. An example is shown below. The format can be adapted to fit with the expected duration of the project. An Overall Activity Schedule may only specify Activities on a quarterly or monthly basis, while an individual’s quarterly work plan may use a weekly format.

59


Figure 32: Example of an Activity Schedule

ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT

ACTIVITIES YEAR 1Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12


1.1.1 Set up offices and equipment

1.1.2 Identify and recruit counterpart staff

1.2 Liaise with relevant departments 1 2 3



1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministersand senior c ivil servants







1.4.2 Assist government in the development of aframework for policy formulation


EXPERTS TIME REQUIRED (days)


L 10

L 10

L S 1 3

L S 8 16

L S 20 20

L 2

L L L 10 10 10

L L L 40 40 40

L S S S 10 5 5 5

L S S S 5 10 10 10

KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65

PM = Project Manager OM = Office Manager E1 = Economist 1 E2 = Policy Specialist E3 = Economist 2


ESTABLISHM ENT OF PLANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT








1.2.3 Hold regular briefings for Ministersand senior c ivil servants











L 10

L 10

L S 1 3

L S 8 16

L S 20 20

L 2

L L L 10 10 10

L L L 40 40 40

L S S S 10 5 5 5

L S S S 5 10 10 10

KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65



3.4.8.2. Preparing Resource Schedules Cost estimates must be based on careful and thorough budgeting. They will have significant influence over the investment decision at project appraisal and subse-quently on the smooth implementation of the project if the go-ahead is given. Again, the list of Activities should be copied into an input and cost schedule pro-forma. Each Activity should then be used as a checklist to ensure that all necessary Means under that Activity are provided for. This list may become very detailed. Then, the Means necessary to undertake the Activities must be specified. It will probably be necessary to aggregate or summarise the cost information. Project costings should allow the allocation of cost to the different funding sources so that each party is clear about their respective contributions. Once Total Cost have been calculated, it is important to remember that the imple-menting agency will be required to meet any recurrent cost of maintaining service provision beyond the life of the project. Recurrent Cost may be covered (fully or partly) through increased revenue that has been generated through project activi-ties. Whether or not this is the case, it is important that the net recurrent cost impli-cations of the project are clearly specified so that the future impact on the imple-menting agency’s budget can be determined.

Figure 33: Example of a Resource Schedule ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Total per year and Project Annual Costs per planning period

ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING UNIT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Total per year and Project Annual Costs per planning period
Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes
per unit source EC Govt Target 1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group

ACTIVITIES1.1 Establish Planning Unit

EQUIPMENTComputers no. 2 2 1.000 EC 3,4Fax modem no. 1 500 EC 3,4Office furniture lump 1 3.000 EC 3,4

SALARIES & ALLOWANCES (LOCAL)Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1

ETC..........

TOTAL PER QUARTER

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

funding source Total recurrent1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Total costs

EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG

2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000 500 - - - 500 - - 500

3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000

800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200 300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200

5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Ref ACTIVITIES/INPUTS Unit Quantity per planning period Cost Funding Cost Codes per unit source EC Govt Target

1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group

ACTIVITIES1.1 Establish Planning Unit


SALARIES & ALLOWANCES (LOCAL)Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B/2.1Office staff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B/2.1

ETC..........

TOTAL PER QUARTER

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

funding source Total recurrent1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Total costs

EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG

2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000 500 - - - 500 - - 500

3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000

800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200 300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200

5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

60


4. TOOLS FOR MANAGING PROJECT QUALITY

4.1. Using the LFA to Assess Project Proposals: An Overview During the preparatory phases of the project cycle, the Logical Framework Approach is primarily intended as a participatory planning tool. However, it is also a powerful tool for ex post analysis of project proposals, the only difference being that the source of information for problems is the project proposal rather than primary data sources such as interviews, surveys, reports and statistics. The purpose of applying the LFA to a proposal is to identify weaknesses or gaps in the project’s design. These gaps will relate to the RELEVANCE, FEASIBILITY or SUSTAINABILITY of the project, and will have to be addressed through the conduct of additional studies, or from existing sources. It is important to note though that the technique merely assists in the desk study of an existing proposal, and in no way substitutes for the participatory planning approach that is central to the sound appli-cation of the LFA.

Has the right information been provided?

There exist two tools for assessing and improving project proposals22: 1. The Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals, which is intended for in-depth

analysis of project proposals prior to the appraisal phase. Its purpose is to assist in the identification of key questions and issues for inclusion in terms of refer-ence for feasibility studies.

2. The Quality Improvement Tool (“Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study”), which is intended for quality checking and improving of draft financing proposals prior to their submission to the relevant financing committee.

4.2. Guide for Assessment of Project Proposals Ideally, issues of relevance, feasibility and sustainability are addressed twice during project preparation – once during the Identification phase (as part of a pre-feasibility study23) and then more comprehensively during the appraisal phase (as part of a feasibility study). However, project proposals are often received ‘ready-made’ from partner governments and institutions, and for this and other reasons a significant proportion of projects in fact undergo only one study. In the absence of a two-study approach to project preparation, it is vital that process managers are able to ensure the quality of terms of reference for what is usually a ‘one-shot’ exercise.

i-
The impor-tance of Feasbility Study TOR!
22 They can be downloaded from the Intranet of EuropeAid – under working tools. 23 A Pre-feasibility Study examines the options for addressing priorities identified during the Programming stage. Alternative interventions are identified, and the study determines whether it is worth going ahead with a Feasibility Study to define the project in more detail.

61


Figure 34: The Role of Terms of Reference in Project Preparation

The Role of TORIndicative

Programme

Terms ofReference

PrefeasibilityStudy

Terms ofReference

FeasibilityStudy

Projectideas

FinancingAgreement

FinancingProposal

relevance

feasibility & sustainability

coherent framework

a

Reality?Indicative

Programme

Terms ofReference

FeasibilityStudy

Projectideas

FinancingAgreement

FinancingProposal

relevance, feasibility & sustainabilitya

The Guide to Assessment contains instructions that provide a framework for analys-ing the coherence and comprehensiveness of a project proposal. The project design is deconstructed and reconstructed, in order to identify the gaps and inconsisten-cies, and thereby to identify questions for inclusion in terms of reference for a feasi-bility study. It also provides a useful means of editing the proposal into a logframe format if the LFA has not been used by the proposing institution. Once the assessment is complete, the questions and issues identified must be sorted and prioritised before incorporation into the terms of reference for the feasibil-ity study. The purpose of the feasibility study will be to provide the decision makers in the Government and the European Commission with sufficient information to jus-tify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for further financing and implementation. Among the key outputs of the feasibility study will be an assessment of the relevance, feasibility and sustainability of the proposed project, and a detailed operational plan based on the logframe structure. The consultant will also be responsible for preparing a draft Financing Proposal (for a format, see Chapter 2.6).

4.3. The Quality Improvement Tool Once the feasibility study has been completed, as task manager you will receive a Feasibility Study Report and a draft Financing Proposal. In accordance with your role as process manager rather than field-level planner, you require tools that will help you ensure the quality of these documents, and in particular of the Financing Proposal as this will provide the basis for the financing decision. Improving

feasibility studies or Financing Proposals

By this stage in project design, the proposal will be in logframe format, and it will not be necessary to repeat the process of deconstructing and reconstructing the project design. Instead, the Quality Improvement Tool offers a checklist approach that breaks down the key concepts of relevance, feasibility and sustainability into simple questions, and provides a framework for rapidly identifying information gaps in the Financing Proposal or Feasibility Study.

62


Figure 35: The Quality Assessment Tool PCM Training Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study

Improving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study Training and Helpdesk Services in Project Cycle Management

Table of Contents QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 1 1. Relevance......................................................................................................................................2

1.1 Are the major stakeholders clearly identified and described? ..................................................... 2 1.2 Are the beneficiaries (target groups and final beneficiaries) clearly identified? ......................... 2 1.3 Are the problems of the target groups and final beneficiaries sufficiently described? ................ 3 1.4 Is the problem analysis sufficiently comprehensive? .................................................................. 3 1.5 Do the Overall Objectives explain why the project is important for sectoral development and

society? ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Does the Project Purpose express a direct benefit for the target groups? .................................... 4 1.7 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the

questions raised above?............................................................................................................... 5 2. Feasibility .....................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Will the Project Purpose contribute to the Overall Objectives (if the Assumptions hold true)?.. 5 2.2 Are the Results products of the implementation of Activities? ................................................... 6 2.3 Will the Project Purpose be achieved if all Results are attained? ................................................ 6 2.4 Are the means sufficiently justified by quantified objectives? .................................................... 6 2.5 Have important external factors been identified? ........................................................................ 7 2.6 Is the probability of realisation of the Assumptions acceptable?................................................. 7 2.7 Will the project partners and implementing agencies be able to implement the project? ............ 7 2.8 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the

questions raised above?............................................................................................................... 8 3. Sustainability ................................................................................................................................9

3.1 Will there be adequate ownership of the project by the target groups / beneficiaries? ................ 9 3.2 Will the relevant authorities have a supportive policy during implementation and after project

completion?................................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Is the technology appropriate for the local conditions? ............................................................... 9 3.4 Will the ecological environment be preserved during and after the project?............................. 10 3.5 Will all beneficiaries have adequate access to benefits and products during and after the

project?...................................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Will the project contribute to gender equality? ......................................................................... 11 3.7 Will the implementing agencies be able to provide follow-up after the project? ...................... 11 3.8 Does the EcoFin (Financial and Economic) Analysis provide sufficient information on the

questions raised above?............................................................................................................. 12 USING THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL TO IDENTIFY INFORMATION NEEDS ............................. 13 QUALITY RATING SHEET FOR FINANCING PROPOSALS / FEASIBILITY STUDIES .............................. 16 Revision March 2002

The Quality Assessment Tool provides an explanation of what is meant by each checklist question, and then provides a rating scale that helps in clarifying precisely what information (if any) is lacking. If any further information is required, this can be written on an information sheet, and fed back to the relevant parties for inclusion in a

l-
Applying quaity criteria
modified version of the proposal.

63


Figure 36: How the Quality Assessment Tool Works PCM Training Imprving the Quality of a Financing Proposal / Feasibility Study

1.3 Are the problems of the target groups and final beneficiaries sufficiently described? Problems are descriptions of existing negative situations in a given context. Very often, project proposals only describe macro-economic problems, or limit themselves to the problems of implementing institutions. Description of their problems is necessary, but in order to verify the project’s relevance, these problems must be linked to the problems faced by the target groups / final beneficiaries. Their problems should be analysed in detail in relation to the project’s area of intervention, and the relative importance of these problems explained. Scoring indicators: Problems of beneficiaries are described sufficiently… when... fully: Problems are described in detail, including information on the specific

problems faced by the target groups and the final beneficiaries. fairly: Problems are described in reasonable detail, but information on specific

problems of different sub-groups is incomplete or missing. hardly: Few problems faced by target groups / final beneficiaries have been

described. not at all No problems from the viewpoint of target groups / final beneficiaries are

stated.

64


5. ANNEXES

5.1. Sector Programmes Efforts have been made to ensure that projects are part of a national policy and that donor co-ordination is improved. However, such an approach is insufficient particu-larly in countries, which have sufficient national capacity to elaborate and implement national policies and co-ordinate donor activities. Sector (-wide) approaches (SWAPs) were born in the mid-eighties under the aegis of the World Bank and Scandinavian donors, concerned about the lack of impact of individual project on the overall sectoral situation in developing countries, about the need for deeper political dialogue to ensure sustainability and ownership, and about the need to focus rare funds on real priorities. At EU level, the Commission started work on SWAPs around 1990 and this term was officially introduced in the Lome IV review in 1995. The Council issued a Resolution in November 1996 on Human Social Development which included a reference to such programmes.

Origin of SWAPs

A sector approach aims at broadening the notion of impact beyond the scope of one specific donor. It aims at providing a public expenditure framework for both local and external resources in support of the development and implementation of an equita-ble, well balanced, and satisfactory policy. As a result, donors evolve from support-ing specific activities to co-financing a policy with the partner country and other do-nors. These co-ordinated efforts are made on the basis of objectives set by the gov-ernment and in the framework of a coherent public sector expenditure programme. In this context it is clear that external assistance will be more and more directly inte-grated into government plans and the national budget. It should also be stressed that sector programmes are of a process character.

Researching a better im-pact

The Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parlia-ment on the European Community’s Development Policy (26/04/00)24 specifies that “this approach facilitates ownership by the partner countries, donor co-ordination, harmonisation of procedures, greater effectiveness of financial support and provides an overall view of the problems of the sector. This process needs to be carefully led with a view to ensuring effective additionality of resources for the supported sectors, good management of public finance, and respect for national sovereignty. It facili-tates the use of direct budgetary aid where the partnership and the capacity in a given sector are sufficiently mature, and represents a more result-oriented support. It requires a comprehensive policy dialogue on specific sectors, capacity building, coherence and linkage with macroeconomic support."

5.1.1. How Do Sector Programmes Work? Sector programmes have three main features: 1. Through a sectoral policy document and strategic framework government takes

responsibility for setting policies, priorities and standards which apply to all pub-lic activity in the sector including that financed by donors.

Three main features

2. All significant funding for the sector supports a single sector policy and expendi-ture programme under government leadership (sector expenditure framework and annual budget).

3. Partners adopt common approaches across the sector and for sub-sectors, and tend to develop, if conditions allow, towards co-financing and budget support.

In the framework of sector programmes, funds are to be provided through the public sector budgets where they should be managed in an effective, transparent and ac-countable manner. The objective of Sector Programmes is to enhance this process,

65

24 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/asia/doc/com00_212.pdf


sharpen the formulation of national policies, improve the effectiveness of implemen-tation strategies, as well as the management of national and external resources. The rules of the game are thus as follows: • All partners finance the same Government defined sector expenditure pro-

gramme and establish agreed consultation procedures, including procedures to solve disagreements. Changes in policy will not be implemented without prior consultation and donors will only support activities within the sector programme.

Rules of the game?

• All partners use agreed appraisal, procurement, disbursement, accounting, and audit procedures based as far as possible on those of the government. Common reporting and monitoring arrangements serve all needs and donors minimise earmarking of funds where priorities are shared. There is a consensus among donors to move towards increasingly harmonised and integrated procedures.

• Government is in control. Donors negotiate aid with the central budget authori-ties (but also with the concerned line ministry) consistent with the policies, re-sources and standards set by government. All technical assistance should focus on facilitation and capacity building and should be under control of government.

A Sector Programme may be financed in different ways: • budgetary support (targeted, i.e. funds are to be used only for specific budget

headings, components or for activities in a specific region, or non-targeted) • common donor fund (“basket funding” - this implies the existence of clear proce-

dures which are harmonised and common to all donors; funds are then, depos-ited in a “common pot”)

How to fi-nance?

• specific donor procedures (similar to the one used for projects but in a common framework)

Given that sector programmes aim at improving overall public sector financial man-agement they will seek to harmonise donor implementation procedures. The prevail-ing trend is to move towards giving donor support through the government budget, provided a minimum of clear procedures and financial control systems are in place. The programme will then include specific measures to strengthen such procedures and establishing a transparent and accountable financial and budgetary system.

5.1.2. Devising a Sector Programme: Issues to Consider There are a number of issues that need thorough consideration when devising a sector programme: 1. Sector programmes require a mid-term public expenditure plan. When external

resources are provided, the planning of the support needs to look carefully into the sustainability of government funding in the long term. It is important that the share of government contribution increases during programme implementation to a level where programme impacts can be sustained and the financing of re-current cost can be ensured.

2. In general, public sector service users must be consulted on the objectives of the sectoral policy before it is adopted by the government, and must also be as-sociated in its implementation (“stakeholder and target group orientation”). When services are to be decentralised, mechanisms must be devised to allow users’ control of the results. Therefore, sectoral programmes will often foresee the insti-tutional strengthening of local administrations and the empowering of local communities to enhance their capacity to participate in the planning and man-agement of resources and services and/or to control their quality and their man-agement.

66


3. The targeting of funds is a way of securing funds for the execution of a particular activity. Sector policy and strategy design and expenditure planning allow to mainstream important cross-cutting issues as gender and environment.

Targeting funds

4. Since a sector programme means co-financing of all resources deployed to im-plement a given policy, perfect control of only a fraction of the budget makes lit-tle sense while the rest of the sector’s resources may be poorly managed. Therefore, the question of good governance must be openly addressed at the initial stages of programme design. It is crucial that the quality of public finance management be assessed during the design of budget support programme so that the potential needs for institutional support can be quickly identified. As-sessment of financial management procedures and internal/external audit sys-tems must be foreseen from the outset, and the measures to be taken in the case of mismanagement of funds must be clearly spelt out.

5. The level of external support is determined by the analysis of the results achieved in improving services to the beneficiaries (populations and/or economic players) as measured on the basis of performance and outcome indicators. This dependence should be explicitly formulated from the start of the programme. One of the main interests of the sector approach is to allow for great flexibility in implementation. Over-planning should therefore be avoided and flexible pro-gramming, based on rolling plans (e.g. of three years) situated within a medium-term framework should be preferred. Such plans should be based on agreed principles and strategic priorities and be accompanied by joint reviews of annual expenditure programmes. Due to these reasons, the sectoral approach must be accompanied by efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation systems (es-tablished by the government / ministry), oriented towards the assessment of im-pact and outcomes.

6. As for the issue of conditionality, only a limited number of strong Pre-conditions should be identified under the sectoral approach, while medium-term implemen-tation should be subject to conditions based on performance and outcomes. This will result in the amount of support being modulated on the basis of the level of achievement of objectives and the amount of services provided to the beneficiar-ies. In addition, the government should commit itself to a set of “basic principles” agreed with donors which should be respected throughout implementation. Such principles might include issues such as the equitable distribution of resources between central and local administrations, the necessary transparency of the budgetary process and accounting system, the implementation of administrative and institutional reforms, etc.

Condition-alities, per-formance and out-comes

7. During the implementation of a programme, conflicts, major governance prob-lems, budgetary incoherence, inconsistency with the agreed principles, with-drawal of main donors, etc. may lead to reconsidering support: Implementation will have to be designed taking into account the overall coherence of support and it may involve the outright suspension of the programme or a substantial modification of the implementation arrangements. In the case of budgetary aid it would be appropriate to explicitly foresee from the start the eventuality of revert-ing to project-type procedures should a serious problem arise with the manage-ment of public funds. This would avoid sudden suspension of support, and the related likely adverse impacts.

5.1.3. The Sector Programme Cycle The Sector Programme Cycle is comparable to the project cycle, the starting point being the Country Support Strategy / Country Strategy Paper: 1. During the Programming phase, the Country Support Strategy identifies the sec-

tors to be supported by the EC. In a process of dialogue between government,

67


donors and other stakeholders at the national and sector level, macroeconomic and budgetary situation, quality of public finance management, issues of good governance, sector policies and the soundness of the objectives are assessed, the appropriateness of the expenditure framework and the coherence of the An-nual Work Plans and budgets are analysed. The outcome is an agreement on which sectors to support.

2. During the Identification phase, pre-appraisal of the sector programme takes place. Government and the donor reach broad agreement on the sector policy and strategy (normally agreed with other donors also). The outcome is a deci-sion on whether or not to go ahead with a sector programme to be jointly de-signed.

3. During the Appraisal phase emphasis is on detailed design and on reaching agreement on the principles that will govern the implementation of the pro-gramme. Such principles might include issues such as the equitable allocation of resources between central and local administrations, the necessary transpar-ency of the budgetary process and accounting system, the implementation of administrative and institutional reforms, etc. Details of programme priorities, sec-tor reforms and investments are agreed, normally with both government and other donors. The outcome is a decision whether or not to propose the pro-gramme for financing. Conditionalities should be specified during this phase.

4. During the Financing phase, a decision is taken on whether or not to fund the programme.

5. During the Implementation phase, the sector programme is implemented within the framework of the public sector expenditure programme. Under joint funding arrangements, the follow-up of expenditure is not limited to the EC contribution only but extends to the entire sector financing, including government and other donors’ funds also. Indicators of sector programmes are often linked to interna-tionally set targets (OECD / DAC International Development Goals).

6. During the Evaluation phase, the focus is on conclusions and recommendations with regard to the outcomes of the programme, and possible improvements to the sector policy and programme.

Figure 37: The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and Major Outcomes

Decision to allocate funds

Basic principles, details of what should be done

Appraisal of Appraisal of government government programmeprogramme

Decision to go ahead with appraisal

Outline of what should be done, sector policy and strategy

Programme Programme prepre--appraisalappraisal

Decision to continue as planned or to re-orient project (annual review)

Implementation Implementation according to according to public sector public sector spending cycle, spending cycle, MonitoringMonitoring

Corrective measures, revision of policy/ strategy

Annual, midAnnual, mid--term reviewterm review

Priority areas, sectors, timetable, indicative programme

The Sector Programme Cycle: What is Done and Major Outcomes

Analysis ofAnalysis of gvtgvt. . policy, conceiving policy, conceiving strategy and strategy and response (CSP)response (CSP)

Programming

Identification of sector support

Appraisal ofsector support

Financing of sector support

Implementation of sector programme

Sector Evaluation

What is What is donedone Outcomes

Decision how to consider results in future programming

Examination Examination of Financing of Financing ProposalProposal

Financing agree-ment on sector programme

68


5.2. Developing a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) There are three key phases in the development of a CSP: 1. Drafting the first version of the CSP/NIP 2. Quality control 3. Formal approval The following table provides an overview, while details about the phases can be found in the “Guidelines for the Implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers”.

Figure 38: Developing a CSP

15

10

10

45****

15

* Depends on previous EC co-operation and exogenous factors such as state of preparation of the PRSP, existing consultation mechanisms etc.

Finalisation in the field between Commission, Government and MS***

**** Including time for translation

Indicative No of working

days needed

No standard time period*

10

Total: 105 days or 21 weeks

If unfavourable opinion

Phase III: Formal

approval

Formal approval by RELEX Directors General and the group of RELEX Commissioners **

*** The approach adopted at this stage may vary from region to region.** By written procedure with a 'droit d'évocation'

Analysis and assessment of the national development strategy (where appropriate linked to a PRSP)

The Delegation and the geographical desk prepare a draft text after extensive consultations with government, civil

society, Member States and other donors

Draft CSP/NIP discussed with geographic and sectoral / thematic and Relex directorates

Assessment in the iQSG

Phase I: Drafting the first version

of the CSP/NIP

Phase II: Quality control

Discussion in Member States Committee, and favourable opinion on the draft

Approval by RELEX Directors General **

if substantive modificationsare required

Before starting the programming exercise, a realistic timetable for CSP/NIP prepara-tion shall be established. This timetable should spell out the expected time needed for each step in the programming exercise.

69


5.3. Details About Implementation

5.3.1. Implementation: Three Main Periods

5.3.1.1. The Inception Period Project implementation begins with the inception period often covering a period of several months during which project organisation including administrative, financial and technical responsibilities are set up, and the initial planning of the appraisal phase is updated and refined. The mechanisms and tools developed for this pur-pose are then used throughout the following periods of implementation. The incep-tion period usually consists of the following elements: • Set-up of the project office and staff recruitment; • If required, implementation of a study to update baseline information; • Discussions with major stakeholders, if possible including target groups, to com-

plete and update the Logical Framework, to prepare the Overall Work Plan and the Activity and Resource Schedules. Ideally, this should be done in a participa-tory workshop session (which will last 3 – 5 days, depending on the complexity of the project);

• Preparation and submission of the Overall Work Plan (incorporating the project’s internal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan) and of the first Annual Work Plan.

Very often, between the preparatory phase and implementation, a number of changes will have occurred in the project’s context. This means that adjustments will need to be made in the Logical Framework to reflect these new circumstances. Of-ten, a study will have to be undertaken, updating the baseline information and thus describing the situation at the start of the project. Its results will serve as an initial point of reference for the Indicators. The detailed Indicators should be developed and incorporated within the Logical Framework and the Activity Schedule before project Activities begin. However, in no case should this revision substitute the draw-ing-up of basic indicators during the appraisal.

Refining and adjusting planning

Using these indicators as a point of reference, project staff will be able to regularly monitor the project’s progress throughout its implementation. They will allow as-sessments to be made as to whether the project is achieving its objectives, to dem-onstrate its technical quality and if necessary, to undertake any corrective actions required to ensuring its success.

5.3.1.2. Main Implementation Period The main implementation period begins with the implementation of the First Annual Work Plan. In relation to the contract/financing agreement, the implementing agency/TA will have particular responsibility for: • The preparation of work plans covering each year of the project, taking into ac-

count the time taken up by the approval process; • Planning and monitoring of implementation; • The preparation and submission of progress reports, usually quarterly; • The preparation and submission of an Annual Report every twelve months from

the start of the project; • The collaboration with external consultants responsible for evaluations and au-

dits, if required.

5.3.1.3. Final Period The final period involves carrying out all the necessary steps to finalize the project. It will usually consist of arranging the deployment of human resources and handing

70


over goods procured under the project budget to those stipulated in the relevant agreement. In addition, a final report should be prepared taking care to provide con-crete recommendations for any subsequent possible action in the same field. The lessons learned and conclusions drawn from the project should allow a decision to be made as to whether or not a follow-up of the project should take place. The re-port should as well provide sufficient information to be used as a basis for reflection in discussing the preparatory phase of a next project and, to the extent possible, for further programming.

5.3.2. Implementation: Three Major Principles

5.3.2.1. Planning and Re-planning: What, When and How? Planning and re-planning are part of project management that have to be done at regular intervals. Apart from a weekly, monthly or quarterly team planning, project management has to prepare an annual planning, and, at the beginning of implemen-tation, the planning of the whole project implementation period. These work plans are important management tools. As mentioned above, regularly updating the Im-plementation Schedule is also part of the tasks of project management.

5.3.2.2. Overall Work Plan The Overall Work Plan covers the whole of project implementation. The key func-tions of a work plan are: • to guide and enable the project team to create a joint perception on what should

be done, when and by whom in order to ensure that the project is on the right track;

• to lay down the basis for monitoring of the work done and to ensure that the pro-ject is leading towards the desired objectives;

• to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; • to lay down a solid basis for reporting. The Overall Work Plan indicates: • what achievements are expected by the end of the project (Results and Purpose

and related Indicators); • what the project team intends to do in order to achieve the Results: Activities (in-

cluding management activities) and the time schedule for Activities; • what resources are needed to carry out the work (time, human and material re-

sources, equipment, etc.) and who is in charge of the tasks (responsibilities). As a document it must be submitted with the Inception report, at the end of the in-ception period, usually after 3 months. The graphical form of the Overall Work Plan corresponds to the Overall Activity Schedule (see Figure 39). It follows logically from the logical framework matrix, breaking down Activities per quarter over the entire project duration, and assigning overall responsibilities. Its main purpose is to consti-tute a form of complete and coherent ‘instrument panel’ designed to assist with the process of project implementation. Already at this stage, it will be very useful to break down the Activities into sub-activities (see Figure 41). Table 21 shows the standard formats for the drawing-up Overall and Annual Work Plans and outlines the major issues that should be described under the different chapters.

71


5.3.2.3. Annual Work Plans The Annual Work Plan is an important management tool both for the Commission as well as for the implementing agency/TA. Great care should be taken in drawing it up. It is worked out on the basis of the Overall Work Plan, itself based on the Logical Framework. Whereas the Overall Work Plan provides a general overview, summa-rising all aspects of project implementation, the Annual Work Plan provides precise details about what Activities are to be carried out, when they are to be carried out and how much they will cost, and the financing plan. It also provides a complete overview of all the Activities to be executed during the 12-month period covered helping to improve the planning of Activities and to avoid any duplications. This as-pect is especially important in the case of complex projects where financing is pro-vided by the EC, the Government and other donors. The text formfsat of the Annual Work Plan is similar though not identical to that of the Overall Work Plan. The graphic format of an Annual Work Plan is the Activity Schedule, while the Annual Resource Schedule visualises Means and Cost graphi-cally (For detailed examples, including instructions how to prepare them, see Chap-ter 5.5). The process of work planning helps amending and adjusting the project according to the changes and new developments in the operating environment. It also helps to in-tegrate lessons learned during implementation into the future process, developing and further specifying / operationalising the project.

72


Figure 39: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule l Overa l Workplan - Activity Schedule

Feeder Roads Rehabilitation in Southern Region

Result Person Responsible

1* 3**

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Result 1:1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to

rehabilitateRoad managment unit, Project manager

1.2 Monitor road rehabilitation, including shelter, etc.

Road managment unit

1.3 Improve collection of road tolls and taxes

Finance & investment departmentMunicipalities

1.4 Devise and apply system for reinvestment

Investment department

1.5 .....

Result 2: 2.1 .....

2.2 .....

2.3 .....

2.4 Involve private sector in maintenance

...

Responsibility for Tasks 1 = Inception periodProject duration: 42 months 3 = Final phase (3 months inception phase, 36 months main implementation period, 3 months final phase)

Activity Completion Date by Quarter

2 (Main implementatin period)

Year 1 Year 2 Yr.4

Ultimate responsibility for carrying out the above-mentioned tasks lies with the Project Manager

Quality of feeder road network is improved

Feeder roads are rehabilitated

Year 3��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

73


Figure 40: An Example for an Overall Work Plan/Activity Schedule

74

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

An n u al Work Plan - Activity Sch edu leFeeder Roads Rehabilitation in Southern Region

Result

PM RMU FID MU VMT M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12Result 1: 1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to rehabilitate x x

1.1.1 Create identification team x x

1.1.2 Determine priority criteria x x x x x

1.1.3 Classify and select roads (priority list) x x x x x

1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation schedule x x x x

1.1.5 Get schedule approved x x

1.2 Monitor road rehabilitation, including shelter, etc. x x1.2.1 Recruit and train monitoring team x x1.2.2 ...

1.3 Improve collection of road tolls and taxes x

1.3.1 ....1.3.2 ....

1.4 Devise and apply system for reinvestment x

1.5 .....

Result 2: 2.1 .....

2.2 .....

2.3 .....

2.4 Involve private sector in maintenance

...

Result ...

Responsibility for Tasks PM = Project Manager = overall duration of activRMU = Road Maintenance Unit = duration of sub-activityFID = Finance & Investment Department

MU = MunicipalitiesVMT = Village Maintenance Teams

x bold = ultimate repsonsibility

Completion Date by Month

Quality of feeder road network is improved

Unit/Person ResponsibleActivity


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Year: 1 2002 - 12 2002

Milestones Month Time required (days)

PM RMU FID MU VMT

Members identified by Apr 01 3 10Members convened to meeting latest

Apr 15 1

First meeting held by Apr 30 1 10 2 3 5

List of criteria established (during 2nd meeting)

May 312 10 2 3 5

Classification done by Jun 15 1 20 5 10 20Priorities agreed upon during 3rd meeting

Jun 301 5 2 3 10

Schedule agreed upon by Jul 31 1 10 3 5 20Schedule submitted to MOT by Aug 15 1

Schedule approved by MOT by Sep 30 5 10

........... ...... 1 60

........ ...... ...

Total 200 620 150 260 1500vity

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Table 21: Draft Standard Formats for Overall and Annual Work Plans and Major Issues to be Described A ROVERALL WORK PLAN NNUAL WORK PLAN EQUIRED CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary of the Overall Work Plan should describe in narrative form what the project in-tends to achieve and how it is going to achieve it; in addition to this, the summary of the Annual Work Plan should also provide information on how the project has been implemented to date. For further details, see below.

A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-MENTS

1. Implementation framework 8.1 Context (economic, social, environ-

mental) 8.2 Objectives (summary) 8.3 Institutional set-up and overall project

organisation 8.4 Staff and qualification 8.5 Monitoring and co-ordination ar-

rangements

A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-MENTS (FOR NEXT YEAR)


mental) 1.2 Objectives (summary) 1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project

organisation 1.4 Staff and qualification 1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-

ments

This chapter should describe the context and operat-ing environment in which the project is being imple-mented. It is important to clearly set out the framework condi-tions for implementing the project: organisation (in-formation flow, relations between units, etc., institu-tional set-up, staff and qualification (current, training foreseen, gaps to be filled, etc.), monitoring and co-ordination arrangements (field visits, meetings, work-shops, data collection and storage, etc.). This will in-fluence efficiency of implementation as well as the speed and effectiveness of learning processes to im-prove the quality of implementation.

B PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ENTIRE DURATION) 2. Project description

2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results, Purpose, Overall Objectives, including Indicators

2.2 Activities and Means planned 2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different lev-

els 2.4 Special Activities to ensure sustainabil-

ity 2.5 Respect of and contribution to over-

arching policy issues 2.6 Linkage with other operations, comple-

mentarity and sectoral co-ordination be-tween donors

B PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ENTIRE DURATION) 2. Project description

2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results, Pur-pose, Overall Objectives, including Indi-cators

2.2 Activities and Means planned 2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different levels 2.4 Special Activities to ensure sustainability 2.5 Respect of and contribution to overarch-

ing policy issues 2.6 Linkage with other operations, comple-


This section describes the project and its Intervention Logic (from Overall Objectives to Activities), and Indicators and Sources of Verification for each level of objectives. Indicators are vital for assessing the suc-cess of the project, they should be summarised in this section; details can be confined to the logframe (An-nex). Special Activities aiming at ensuring sustainabil-ity should be described as well as how the project complements and will linked and co-ordinate with other operations The section should also set out the Assumptions on which the project is based and the risks it might face, as well as at least a breakdown of the resources re-quired to implement the project (at least on yearly ba-sis).

75


OVERALL WORK PLAN ANNUAL WORK PLAN REQUIRED CONTENTS C PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY,

EFFECTIVENESS) AND IMPACT TO DATE* 3. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation

3.1 Activities planned and implemented (per Result, & assessment of Assumptions re-lated to Activities)

3.2 Means planned and used 3.3 Progress towards Results (and assess-

ment of Assumptions) 4 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons

for deviation 4.1 Progress towards Purpose (and as-

sessment of Assumptions) 4.2 Progress towards a contribution to Over-

all Objectives 4.3 Respect of and contribution to overarch-



Here comparison between plans and achievements including reasons for deviations (and mitigating measures) should be provided covering the entire im-plementation period so far. This concerns both the efficiency and the effectiveness levels. As for the first level, the analysis should provide in-formation about the current status with regard to achievement of Results, as well as about cost per unit produced. Evidence of validity of the Results should as well be provided. For the second level progress towards these objec-tives and prospects to achieve them should be pre-sented. The influence of external factors and reaction of man-agement to reduce risks should as well be highlighted.

C SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS 3 Background and present situation with re-

gard to sustainability / quality 3.1 Participation and ownership by

beneficiaries 3.2 Policy support 3.3 Appropriate technology 3.4 Socio-cultural aspects 3.5 Gender equality 3.6 Environmental protection 3.7 Institutional and management capacity 3.8 Economic and financial viability

D SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS* 5 Background and progress to date towards

sustainability / quality 5.1 Participation and ownership by benefici-

aries 5.2 Policy support 5.3 Appropriate technology 5.4 Socio-cultural aspects 5.5 Gender equality 5.6 Environmental protection 5.7 Institutional and management capacity 5.8 Economic and financial viability

Ensuring sustainability of benefits to be generated by the project requires careful consideration of a number of factors. This section should present the main issues that impact on sustainability. It should then reflect how the project dealt with each of the issues (if relevant), and which further action is required to achieving sustainable benefits.

76


OVERALL WORK PLAN ANNUAL WORK PLAN REQUIRED CONTENTS

D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Overall conclusions on implementation (including critical issues/risks) – entire duration

4.2 Overall recommendations for the next implementation period

E CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Overall conclusions on implementation (including critical issues/risks) – entire duration to date


This section should provide general conclusions on achievements to date (to what extent Results are reached and the project is approaching the Purpose) and formulate overall recommendations for the next implementation period, and how to tackle them.

7. Proposed Work Plan for the next implemen-tation period (year) 7.1 Results to be produced (and to which

extent by the end of the period) 7.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones,

responsibilities 7.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability 7.4 Risks and Assumptions 7.5 Resource Schedule

This section should provide an overview on what the project intends to do and achieve during the next im-plementation period and what the Assumptions and risks may be and how the project intends to deal with these if they occur. The Activity and Resource Schedules should be de-tailed and the Activity Schedule should set out both relevant milestones and implementation responsibili-ties.

E ANNEXES 5.1 Updated Logical Framework 5.2 Updated implementation Schedule 5.3 Overall Work Plan 5.4 Resource Schedule for entire period 5.5 Others

F ANNEXES 8.1 Updated Logical Framework 8.2 Updated Implementation Schedule 8.3 Updated Overall Work Plan 8.4 Resource Schedule for entire period 8.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule for

next implementation year 8.6 Annual Resource Schedule for next im-

plementation year (annual reports) 8.7 Others

The Annex should provide all planning documents in tabular and / or graphic format. Additional annexes may be provided to specify other important aspects.

* Describing progress during the entire implementation period to date.

77


The core text of the work plans reports should not exceed 15 pages for the Overall Work Plan and 20 pages for the Annual Work Plans. The Executive Summary should give a brief overview on the following major issues: What

should an Executive Summary comprise?

1. Implementation environment, including context of the project, institutional set-up (and any major changes);

2. Major objectives to be achieved and major Activities to be carried out and re-sources to be used during the forthcoming year;

3. For Annual Work Plan: Major Activities carried out and resources used during the past year, including comparison with planning; an analysis of constraints and failures, and how they have been solved, or why they were not solved; overall progress towards objectives set, including delays if any;

4. Major issues to be considered with regard to sustainability and measures fore-seen (and taken – in Annual Work Plans);

5. Conclusions and outlook for the entire planning period – for Overall Work Plan – and for the next year – for both types of work plans – i.e. focus, most important aspects, resources required, etc.;

6. Key observations, action required and by whom. The summary should not exceed 2 pages. It could be used as an annual summary about the project’s status quo and planning from the Delegation level to EC headquarters (see Figure 8).

5.3.2.4. Planning of Management Activities Usually, management activities are not included in the logframe. However, they need to be planned as thoroughly as project Activities, and their planning can be added to the work plans (they will as well require human and financial resources). Major management activities will comprise the following: 1. quality control 2. information, communication and reporting 3. financial planning (budget control, stock taking) 4. staff management (training, team building, etc.) When planning and implementing management activities, project managers should at least consider the following major issues:

Table 22: Major Management Activities for Project Managers Issues Steps

1. Quality control (processes and outputs)

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

⇒

Define what type of information needs to be collected, how it should be systematised and stored Define when monitoring Activities should take place, how to organise them and whom to involve Define how to use and present monitoring results, conclusions and recommendations Define whom to inform about decisions and their implications on budgets, resource mobilisation, activity re-scheduling, etc. Plan timely for evaluations involving a wider range of stakeholders

2. Information, communication and reporting

⇒ Define what is necessary in terms of formal communication, when, to whom and in which form the information should be made available

For reporting: see below 3. Financial plan-

ning ⇒

⇒

Forecast financial resources over time, to the level of detail required (see resource scheduling) Determine when to review expenditures and to adjust forecasts to ensure availability of funds when required

4. Staff / person-nel manage-ment

⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Define tasks and responsibilities (see Activity scheduling) Identify training needs to perform tasks; organise required training Ensure team building and motivation of staff

78


As for all other activities, management activities should periodically be reviewed and adjusted.

5.3.3. Monitoring: Some Basic Steps Monitoring creates the information base required for steering and decision-taking during implementation. Since monitoring is not only done within a project but also by the different levels within EC, the partner government, etc. decision must be taken, what information is required to control the project implementation process and how it is to be obtained, collected, analysed, dispatched. Therefore, monitoring will usually involve the following steps:

Table 23: Basic Steps of Monitoring Step Content

1. Collecting data (facts, observation and measurement) and documenting them

• Indicators for objectives at all levels of the Logical Framework • Quality and appropriateness of Activities and use of resources

(performance) • Project environment (Indicators for Assumptions) • Project impact • Co-operation with target groups and partners

2. Analysing and drawing conclu-sions (interpreta-tion)

• Comparison of planned and actual achievements (planned and unforeseen), and identification of deviations (review) and conclusions

• Changes in project environment and consequences for project; drawing conclusions

• Comparison of planned and actual mechanisms and proce-dures of project organisation and co-operation with target groups; identification of deviations and conclusions

3. Making recom-mendations (judgement) and taking corrective action

• Adjustment of timing of Activities and resources • Adjustment of objectives • Adjustment of procedures and co-operation mechanisms

Internal monitoring documents and progress reports record and present the results of this process (for reporting formats see below). The main responsibility will usually be with the project management (partly delegated to an M&E unit).

5.3.3.1. Major Monitoring Issues: Overview and Support Material

5.3.3.2. Monitoring of Activities and Means / Resources Monitoring of Activities compares time planned for and finally required to carry out an individual activity. Thus, it can be judged whether the Overall Work Plan can be adhered to. The major tool is the Annual Work Plan that should be sufficiently de-tailed to allow for such a judgement. In this framwork deadlines are defined as the point time until which a specific Activity has to be completed; while “milestones” are key events in the implementation of Activities that provide a measure of progress and a target for the project team to aim at. The simplest possible milestones are deadlines.

The role of milestones

Both milestones and deadlines provide the basis on which project implementation is monitored and managed. Whenever individual Activities deviate from the schedule, the consequences on other Activities and resources must be considered. Causes of these deviations need to be analysed and timing may have to be adjusted. If deadlines for Activities that are on the “critical path” (see chapter 5.4) or influence the timing of other Activities cannot be respected, project management is also re-quired to react by adjusting plans, shifting resources, etc.

79


Resources need to be available at the time required in sufficient quantities and qual-ity. The time required for making them available is often underestimated. This con-cerns both human resources and physical resources. To ensure the project’s liquid-ity, availability of funds for the future must always be monitored, including situation of the public budget, exchange rates, etc. If target groups contribute to financing project activities, it must be assured that they can meet the requirements. Purchase of equipment, contracting for works and supplies will have to follow the applicable EC rules. Project management has to ensure that planning of Activities reflects the time required to mobilise the resources. The utilisation of the required resources is monitored on the basis of the Activity and Resource Schedules. Monitoring the use of resources mainly concerns analysing the resources used as to the Results they achieved. This will allow estimates of pro-ject efficiency. Properly managing the use of resources means identifying deviations from the scheduling, and taking corrective action if required. The control of funds re-quires regular budget reviews and possibly subsequent updates of the budget. Ma-jor modifications in the budget will require amendments to contracts or financing ag-reements. The following table (“Monitoring sheet”) provides a summary template in a tabular format (with an example) of monitoring of Activities and resources. It would summa-rise (cumulate) resource use at the end of a certain period. It will be based on the Activity Schedule and a detailed resource monitoring form (e.g. per quarter), itself based on the Resource Schedule. The table may as well be used for reporting pur-poses and could form part of the progress reports to be produced by the project (see Chapter 5.3.4).

80


Table 24: Monitoring of Activities: Cumulative Monitoring Sheet mmCu ulativ e m onitoring of Activ tie s and Re source s

Situation at the e nd of quarte r 3

Indica tor/ m ile stone Tim e Achie ve d w he n (da te

or Y/N)

Re vise d tim ing

Re spons-ible

Com m e nts Action re quire d PM RM U FID Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

M U Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

VM T Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to rehabilitate

PM

1.1.1 Create identification teamMembers identified by Apr 01 Y RMU 3 10 0 500 0 0 150 0 0 100 0Members convened to meeting latest

Apr 15 Y RMU 0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0

First meeting held by Apr 30 Y RMU 1 10 2 500 6500 3 150 450 5 100 500

1.1.2 Determine priority c riteria List of criteria established (during 2nd meeting)

May 31 Jul 15 RMU Establishment delayed due to annual leave period

2 10 2 500 7000 3 150 450 5 100 500

1.1.3 Classify and select roads (priority lis t)

Classification done by Jun 15 Sep 15 RMU, VMT, MU

1 20 5 500 13000 10 150 1500 20 100 2000

Priorities agreed upon during 3rd meeting

Jun 30 Sep 30 RMU, VMT, MU

1 5 2 500 4000 3 150 450 10 100 1000

1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation schedule

Schedule agreed upon by

Jul 31 N Oct 7 RMU, VMT, MU

1 10 3 500 7000 5 150 750 20 100 2000

Schedule submitted to MOT by

Aug 15 N Oct 15 RMU Delayed establishment of schedule, so no submission yet possible

Speed up process of submission and approval

0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0

1.1.5 Get schedule approved Schedule approved by MOT by

Sep 30 N Oct 31 PM Meeting with M inister to arrange; Delegation to be asked to support approval

5 10 0 500 7500 0 150 0 0 100 0

TOTAL pla nne d for Activity 1.1

14 77 14 46000 24 3600 60 6000

TOTAL use d for Activity 1.1 during qua rte r

8 56 11 31000 19 2850 40 4000

BALANCE to be use d 6 21 3 15000 5 750 20 2000

PM = Project manager =RM U = Road Maintenance UnitFID = Finance & Investment DepartmentM U = Munic ipalitiesVM T = Village Maintenance Teams

No. Activity/sub-a ctivity Hum a n re source s use d

M U VM T

To be continued during next quarter

Proje ct

Indica tors, tim ing a nd re sponsibility Com m e nts on a ctivitie s a nd a ction re quire d

Type of re source

Units Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)


Cost (€)


Cost (€)

Com m e nts Action re quire d

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70Per diem 0 30 0 3 30 90 5 30 150Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70

Per diem 0 0 0 3 30 90 5 30 150Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70

Per diem 0 30 0 2 30 60 5 30 150Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70


Per diem 3 30 90 0 0 0 3 30 90Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 0 0 0

Per diem 1 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel cost 1000 0,7 700 0 0 0 0 0 0

1190 470 1040

230 470 880

960 0 160

Proje ct M U

Com m e nts on re source s a nd a ction re quire d

VM T

Physica l re source s use d

Cu ulativ e m onitoring of Activ tie s and Re source sSituation at the e nd of quarte r 3

Indica tor/ m ile stone Tim e Achie ve d w he n (da te

or Y/N)

Re vise d tim ing

Re spons-ible

Com m e nts Action re quire d PM RM U FID Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

M U Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

VM T Unit ra te (€)

Cost (€)

1.1 Identify priority feeder roads to rehabilitate

PM

1.1.1 Create identification teamMembers identified by Apr 01 Y RMU 3 10 0 500 0 0 150 0 0 100 0Members convened to meeting latest

Apr 15 Y RMU 0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0

First meeting held by Apr 30 Y RMU 1 10 2 500 6500 3 150 450 5 100 500

1.1.2 Determine priority c riteria List of criteria established (during 2nd meeting)

May 31 Jul 15 RMU Establishment delayed due to annual leave period

2 10 2 500 7000 3 150 450 5 100 500

1.1.3 Classify and select roads (priority lis t)

Classification done by Jun 15 Sep 15 RMU, VMT, MU

1 20 5 500 13000 10 150 1500 20 100 2000

Priorities agreed upon during 3rd meeting

Jun 30 Sep 30 RMU, VMT, MU

1 5 2 500 4000 3 150 450 10 100 1000

1.1.4 Establish rehabilitation schedule

Schedule agreed upon by

Jul 31 N Oct 7 RMU, VMT, MU

1 10 3 500 7000 5 150 750 20 100 2000

Schedule submitted to MOT by

Aug 15 N Oct 15 RMU Delayed establishment of schedule, so no submission yet possible

Speed up process of submission and approval

0 1 0 500 500 0 150 0 0 100 0

1.1.5 Get schedule approved Schedule approved by MOT by

Sep 30 N Oct 31 PM Meeting with M inister to arrange; Delegation to be asked to support approval

5 10 0 500 7500 0 150 0 0 100 0

TOTAL pla nne d for Activity 1.1

14 77 14 46000 24 3600 60 6000

TOTAL use d for Activity 1.1 during qua rte r

8 56 11 31000 19 2850 40 4000

BALANCE to be use d 6 21 3 15000 5 750 20 2000

PM = Project manager =RM U = Road Maintenance UnitFID = Finance & Investment DepartmentM U = Munic ipalitiesVM T = Village Maintenance Teams

No. Activity/sub-a ctivity Hum a n re source s use d

M U VM T

To be continued during next quarter

Proje ct

Indica tors, tim ing a nd re sponsibility Com m e nts on a ctivitie s a nd a ction re quire d

Type of re source


Cost (€)


Cost (€)


Cost (€)

Com m e nts Action re quire d

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70Per diem 0 30 0 3 30 90 5 30 150Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 100 0,7 70

Per diem 0 0 0 3 30 90 5 30 150Travel cost 0 0 0 100 0,7 70 100 0,7 70



Per diem 3 30 90 0 0 0 3 30 90Travel cost 100 0,7 70 0 0 0 0 0 0

Per diem 1 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel cost 1000 0,7 700 0 0 0 0 0 0

1190 470 1040

230 470 880

960 0 160

Proje ct M U

Com m e nts on re source s a nd a ction re quire d

VM T

Physica l re source s use d

81


5.3.3.3. Monitoring of Results Monitoring of Results is based on the Indicators for the Results. The Indicators rep-resent the desired situation at a specific time or at the end of the planning period. However, this may not be sufficient for managing the project, since very often deci-sions have to be taken at shorter intervals to control implementation. Therefore, Re-sults may have to be broken down in interim Results and described by additional In-dicators that cover the relevant planning period (e.g. Indicators should be set for Annual Work Plans). Progress is assessed by comparing an initial situation with the current situation. When establishing the initial situation (which should have been done during project preparation, and updated during the inception period), it should be kept in mind that a wide range of data collection methods exist. It is very often not the so-called ex-haustive baseline survey that provides the most appropriate data required for project management decisions, but rather less time- and cost-consuming methods that may be found in the Rapid Appraisal toolbox and that will provide sufficient details about the initial situation. The following table shows a template of how monitoring of Results could be summa-rised in a table format (with an example), including breakdown of Indicators for a given period – quarterly and cumulative monitoring. The table will immediately pro-vide a visual overview of the progress towards the Results, and relevant remarks and suggested corrective action. It could form part of the progress reports to be produced by the project (see Chapter 5.3.4).

82


Table 25: Monitoring of Results: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet

Quarte rly and cum ulativ e m onitoring of Re sultsNo. Re sult

Indica tor S che dule d progre ss tow a rds

indica tor for e ntire dura tion a t e nd of re porting

qua rte r

Real progress towards

indicator for entire

duration

Unit Re a l progre ss tow a rds

indica tor for e ntire

dura tion

Qua ntity for e ntire dura tion

Unit Achie ve d be fore

re porting qua rte r

Unit % Qua ntity for


Achie ve d during


Unit % %

1 Feeder roads are rehabilitated

km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards, by 2004

250 km 100 km 40 km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards, by 2004

50 50 km 100 150 150 km 60

2 Quality of feeder road network is improved

% of the feeder roads are regularly maintained, to the MOT approved standards

50 15 % 30 Additional % of the feeder roads are maintained

10 8 % 80 50 46

etc.

P la nning a nd progre ss tow a rds Re sults

P la nning for e ntire dura tion Ove ra ll pla nning a nd progre ss to da te

Indica tor

Achie ve d be fore re porting qua rte r

A chieved during reporting quarter

P la nning a nd progre ss for re porting qua rte r

Quantity for entire duration

Achieved before reporting

quarter

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

km o f p rio rity fe e d e r ro a d s re h a b ilita te d to th e MO T a p p ro ve d s ta n d a rd s , b y 2 0 0 4


Quantity for reporting quarter

Achieved during

reporting quarter

0 10 20 30 40 50 60km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards,by 2004


0 20 40 60

Real progress towards indicator f

Scheduled progress towards indi

Ove ra ll pla

Indica tor va lid (Y/N)

S ource s va lid (Y/N)

Y Y

Y Y Reduced maintenance due to the fact that all activities traditionally s low down during August.

Review the time schedule and check if it is necessary to reallocate funds

V a lidity of indica tors a nd source s of

ve rifica tion

Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n

80 100 120 1

for entire duration

cator for entire duration at end of repo

nning a nd progre ss to da te

Quarte rly and cum ulativ e m onitoring of Re sultsNo. Re sult

Indica tor S che dule d progre ss tow a rds

indica tor for e ntire dura tion a t e nd of re porting

qua rte r

Real progress towards

indicator for entire

duration

Unit Re a l progre ss tow a rds

indica tor for e ntire

dura tion

Qua ntity for e ntire dura tion

Unit Achie ve d be fore


Unit % Qua ntity for


Achie ve d during


Unit % %

1 Feeder roads are rehabilitated

km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards, by 2004

250 km 100 km 40 km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards, by 2004

50 50 km 100 150 150 km 60

2 Quality of feeder road network is improved

% of the feeder roads are regularly maintained, to the MOT approved standards

50 15 % 30 Additional % of the feeder roads are maintained

10 8 % 80 50 46

etc.

P la nning a nd progre ss tow a rds Re sults

P la nning for e ntire dura tion Ove ra ll pla nning a nd progre ss to da te

Indica tor

Achie ve d be fore re porting qua rte r

A chieved during reporting quarter

P la nning a nd progre ss for re porting qua rte r

Quantity for entire duration

Achieved before reporting

quarter

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

km o f p rio rity fe e d e r ro a d s re h a b ilita te d to th e MO T a p p ro ve d s ta n d a rd s , b y 2 0 0 4


Quantity for reporting quarter

Achieved during

reporting quarter

0 10 20 30 40 50 60km of priority feeder roads rehabilitated to the MOT approved standards,by 2004


0 20 40 60

Real progress towards indicator f

Scheduled progress towards indi

Ove ra ll pla


S ource s va lid (Y/N)

Y Y

Y Y Reduced maintenance due to the fact that all activities traditionally s low down during August.

Review the time schedule and check if it is necessary to reallocate funds

V a lidity of indica tors a nd source s of

ve rifica tion

Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n

80 100 120 1

for entire duration

cator for entire duration at end of repo

nning a nd progre ss to da te

83


5.3.3.4. Monitoring of Assumptions While Activities and Results are very often regularly monitored, adequate monitoring of Assumptions and Risks is rather rarely done. As for Results, Assumptions can also tagged with Indicators and Sources of Verification. The following table provides an overview sheet for monitoring of Assumptions. It will form the basis for a quarterly monitoring of Assumptions (see Table 27), which will work in a comparable way as the sheet for Results monitoring, i.e. providing an overview of the achievement (or progress towards) the Assumptions, and relevant remarks and suggested corrective action. Project management is asked to react as immediately as possible if Assump-tions do not hold true and jeopardise project success, e.g. through adjusting plan-ning, convening meetings with concerned parties and partners. The tables could form part of the progress reports to be produced by the project. Further Assumptions need to be added if required, i.e. if factors have been over-looked or new possible risks arise in the project environment.

Table 26: Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet

Monitoring of Assumptions: Overview Sheet

Le ve l in LF Assum ption Indica tors Source s of ve rifica tion

For e ntire dura tion For e ntire dura tion

Project Purpose ...... ...... ...... ......Result 1 ...... ...... ...... ......Result 2 Load limits are

respected by lorries and busses

By 2005, 80 % of controlled lorries and busses respect the load limit

Quarterly traffic control report of the municipality

Damage to roads will reduce impact of maintenance efforts and quality of network

Additional cost will occur for gvt. and drivers (maintenance)

By 2003, at least 60 % of controlled lorries and busses respect the load limit

Review of collaboration mechanisms with traffic police necessary

Meet and discuss enforcement and driver training policy with MOT and traffic police

Result...

Activity 1.1. ...... ...... ...... ......etc.

Com m e nts / conse que nce s if

Assum ptions do not hold true

84


Table 27: Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly and Cumulative Monitoring Sheet Monitoring of Assumptions: Quarterly Monitoring Sheet

Le ve l in LF

Assum ption Indica tors Re m a rks Action to be ta ke n

For e ntire dura tion

For re porting qua rte r

Achie ve d during re porting qua rte r

Achie ve d during

re porting qua rte r (%)


For e ntire dura tion

Source s va lid (Y/N)

Project Purpose

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Result 1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......Result 2 Load lim its are

respected by lorries and busses

By 2005, 80 % of controlled lorries and busses respect the load lim it

At least 50 % of controlled lorries and busses respected the load limit

55 % of controlled lorries and busses respected the load limit

100 Y Quarterly traffic control report of the municipality

N Reports of munic ipality regularly delayed. Therefore change was made of SoV to gvt. reports which are more reliable

Update LF and report change to contracting authority

Result... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Activity 1.1.

etc .

Source s of ve rifica tion

85


5.3.3.5. Monitoring of Impacts Impact monitoring looks at: • project effectiveness (“doing the right things”) and beyond, i.e. the positive and in-

tended impacts; • the side effects not included in the logframe; • the negative impacts. These effects and impacts may become evident during the course of a project or only later. Impact monitoring should be set up during the course of a project. Apart from the project level, the analysis becomes most important for evaluation, strategic steering and policy formulation for future undertakings. The monitoring of effects and impacts is different from other kinds of monitoring be-cause of • the long-term period of observation, i.e. there may be a considerable time gap

between the achievement of the Results and the emergence of benefits and im-pacts. In such cases it may be helpful to work with process-oriented indicators, i.e. indicators that are likely to show first and subsequent signs of the intended impact. They should at least give a good indication of whether the project is on the right track. Usually the assessment will involve direct feedback from and as-sessment by the target groups;

• a close connection between changes due directly to a project or programme, and its environment and context, i.e. that it is often difficult to distinguish between changes occurring directly due to the project and changes that would already have taken place without the project (“incremental benefits”).

The procedure and instruments for impact monitoring are the same as for monitoring of Results: collecting information in the form of tables and time sequences, etc.

5.3.4. Reporting on Progress: What, When and How? In general, reports can be categorised as follows depending on the time they are to be submitted by the project management to the respective authorities.

1. An Inception Report shortly (1-3- months) after the launch of the project 2. Progress Reports during the project implementation, usally quarterly or half-

yearly reports plus 3. Annual Reports 4. A Final Report when the project has been completed.

To whom exactly to submit – Government, contracting authority, steering group, EC, etc. – and within which delays, is usually defined in the financing agreement or con-tract under which the project is implemented. As a general rule, reports should be submitted not later than one month after the period about which they are reporting. Only this may allow corrective measures to be taken at EC and partner country level within reasonable delays Reports create the basis for the Integrated Approach. The key principle of reporting is that attention is paid to the same important and critical elements from the early preparation until the very end, project completion. In general, reporting should focus on the following key elements:

Focus of reporting

• Project environment • Project performance vis-à-vis the objectives and plans • Risks and Assumptions • Sustainability • Recommendations and detailed work plan and budget for the following

implementation period.

86


Table 28 provides an overview on the various report types. The same principles as for work plans apply with regard to the contents of the chapters. The structure and contents requirements of the different types of reports are briefly described in the following table. These are outlines that may need adjustments to a specific project environment. Its contents are derived from the basic document format and the sug-gested format for financing proposals, thus forming a coherent set of documents to be produced during the project cycle. By requesting the same structure to be fol-lowed, an approach is taken that enables lessons learned to be incorporated in de-cision making systems and future work. The monitoring sheets presented above should be used in the relevant chapters, thus helping to summarise the situation at the end of the reporting period. Finally, monitoring and reporting should not be misunderstood and regarded as a bureaucratic act. Reporting is often neglected and legitimised by concentrating on the “real work”, the fieldwork. However, a good monitoring and reporting system creates a solid basis for assessment, decision making and planning. In the end, analytical and transparent reporting also justifies the use of public funds.

87


Table 28: Draft Standard Formats for Project Reports PINCEPTION REPORT FROGRESS REPORTS & ANNUAL REPORTS INAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E XECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-

MENTS 1. Implementation framework

1.1 Context (economic, social, environ-mental)

1.2 Objectives (summary) 1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project or-

ganisation 1.4 Staff and qualification 1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-

ments

A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS (UPDATE)

1. Implementation framework 1.1 Context (economic, social, environmental) 1.2 Objectives (summary) 1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project

organisation 1.4 Staff and qualification 1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrangements

A IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND ARRANGE-MENTS


mental) 1.2 Objectives (summary) 1.3 Institutional set-up and overall project or-

ganisation 1.4 Staff and qualification 1.5 Monitoring and co-ordination arrange-

ments B OVERALL WORK PLAN (ENTIRE DURATION) 2. Project description

2.1 Objectives to be achieved: Results, Pur-pose, Overall Objectives, including Indi-cators

2.2 Activities and Means planned 2.3 Assumptions and Risks at different levels 2.4 Respect of and contribution to overarch-



B PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVE-NESS) AND IMPACT*

2. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation 2.1 Activities planned and implemented (per

Result, & assessment of Assumptions re-lated to Activities)

2.2 Means planned and used 2.3 Progress towards Results (and assessment

of Assumptions) 3 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons for

deviation 3.1 Progress towards Purpose (and assess-

ment of Assumptions) 3.2 Progress towards a contribution to Overall

Objectives 3.3 Respect of and contribution to overarching

policy issues 3.4 Linkage with other operations, complemen-

tarity and sectoral co-ordination between donors

B PROJECT PERFORMANCE (EFFICIENCY, EFFEC-TIVENESS) AND IMPACT (ENTIRE DURATION)*

2. Efficiency, including reasons for deviation 2.1 Activities planned and implemented (per

Result, & assessment of Assumptions re-lated to Activities)

2.2 Means planned and used 2.3 Achievement of Results (and assessment

of Assumptions) 3 Effectiveness and Impact, including reasons

for deviation 3.1 Achievement of Purpose (and assess-

ment of Assumptions) 3.2 Level of contribution to Overall Objectives 3.3 Respect of and contribution to overarch-



88


INCEPTION REPORT FPROGRESS REPORTS & ANNUAL REPORTS INAL REPORT C SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS 3 Background and present situation with regard

to sustainability / quality 3.1 Participation and ownership by benefici-

aries 3.2 Policy support 3.3 Appropriate technology 3.4 Socio-cultural aspects 3.5 Gender equality 3.6 Environmental protection 3.7 Institutional and management capacity 3.8 Economic and financial viability

C SUSTAINABILITY* 4 Progress towards sustainability / quality

4.1 Participation and ownership by beneficiar-ies

4.2 Policy support 4.3 Appropriate technology 4.4 Socio-cultural aspects 4.5 Gender equality 4.6 Environmental protection 4.7 Institutional and management capacity 4.8 Economic and financial viability

C SUSTAINABILITY* 4 Measures undertaken and prospects for sus-

tainability / quality 4.1 Participation and ownership by

beneficiaries 4.2 Policy support 4.3 Appropriate technology 4.4 Socio-cultural aspects 4.5 Gender equality 4.6 Environmental protection 4.7 Institutional and management capacity 4.8 Economic and financial viability





5.1 Overall conclusions on implementation (in-cluding critical issues/risks)

5.2 Recommendations for the next implemen-tation period



5.2 Recommendations for future pro-grammes and projects (lessons learnt)

5. Detailed Work Plan for the next implementation period (Annual Work Plan)

5.1 Results to be produced (and to which ex-tent by the end of the period)

5.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones, responsibilities

5.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability 5.4 Assumptions and Risks 5.5 Resource Schedule

6. Proposed Work Plan for the next implementation period

6.1 Results to be produced (and to which ex-tent by the end of the period)

6.2 Activity Schedule, including milestones, re-sponsibilities

6.3 Special Activities to ensure sustainability 6.4 Assumptions and Risks 6.5 Resource Schedule

E ANNEXES 6.1 Updated Logical Framework 6.2 Updated Implementation Schedule 6.3 Overall Work Plan 6.4 Resource Schedule for entire period 6.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule

6.7 Others

E ANNEXES 7.1 Updated Logical Framework 7.2 Updated Implementation Schedule 7.3 Updated Overall Work Plan 7.4 Updated Overall Resource Schedule 7.5 Annual Work Plan/Activity Schedule for

next implementation year (annual reports) 7.6 Annual Resource Schedule for next imple-

mentation year (annual reports) 7.7 Others

E ANNEXES 6.1 Updated Logical Framework 6.2 Updated Implementation Schedule 6.3 Updated and final Overall Work Plan 6.4 Updated Annual Work Plan/Activity

Schedule of last year of implementation 6.5 Updated Overall Resource Schedule and

cost summary/financial status 6.6 Others

6.6 Annual Resource Schedule

* Each time, where possible, describing both progress during last reporting period and during the entire implementation period to date.

89


The core text of the reports should not exceed 15 pages. The Executive Summary should describe in narrative form how the project has been implemented during the period covered by the report. It should give a brief overview on the following major issues:

What should an Executive Summary comprise?

1. Implementation environment, including the context of the project, the institutional set-up and any major changes

2. Major Activities carried out and resources used during the reporting period, in-cluding comparison with planning

3. Constraints and failures, and how they have been solved, or why they were not solved

4. Overall progress towards objectives set, including delays if any 5. Overall progress towards sustainability and measures taken 6. Conclusions and outlook for the next planning period (focus, most important as-

pects, resources required, etc.), and lessons to be learnt 7. Key observations, action required and by whom The summary should not exceed 2 pages. It could be used as a basis for reporting from the Delegation level to EC headquarters (see Figure 8).

5.3.4.1. Reporting Types and Formats The Inception Report is highly recommended for all projects, not depending on their size or duration. This is primarily because it might provide the project management with the first real possibility to review the project with the concerned stakeholder groups and to ensure that the project logic does actually make sense for them, thus strengthening their commitment. Secondly, the inception period provides the project with the possibility to screen its environment and to match the resources available to that context. This is usually necessary even if the project preparation included de-tailed background studies. In addition this is a good opportunity to rectify and adjust, if required, the initial logframe. Annual Reports are compulsory for every project. The time period covered may dif-fer from the calendar year. Any deviations from the work plan must be mentioned. The main purpose is to summarise the main achievements and the changes in the work plan during the year. The report primarily compares the actual performance with the planned objectives. In addition, any changes in conditions, unexpected events or decisions to change the work plan should be reported. The report should yet be comprehensive. The annual report should also include relevant updated background information on the economic environment as well as on any changes in the policies in the con-cerned sector. It should give an overview on the prospects for sustainability as well. A short Executive Summary specifically addressing the decisions and actions needed from relevant stakeholders should be presented at the beginning of each Annual Report. Annual Reports must be distributed as stipulated in the contract, usually during the second month of the following year. Quarterly Reports are similar to Annual Reports, but should be shorter. They should be distributed during the following month. Final Reports should reflect the whole implementation period taking a review per-spective and critically analysing project success. In addition, lessons learnt should be formulated in a way that they may guide future projects and programming.

90


5.4. A Checklist for Preparing an Activity Schedule Once the logframe itself is complete, it is then possible to copy the Activities from the left-hand column into an activity-scheduling format. The format can be adapted to fit with the expected duration of the project in question. The first year’s Activities may be specified in more detail (showing the start and finish of Activities to within a week of their expected timing) while subsequent years scheduling should usually be more indicative (to within a month). These are just preliminary estimates that will subsequently be revised by project management in the light of actual implementa-tion performance. They nevertheless provide an important initial benchmark, and aid the preparation of Resource Schedules. A step-by-step approach can be followed:

5.4.1. Step 1 – List Main Activities The main Activities in the logframe are a summary of what the project must do in or-der to achieve project objectives. These can now be used as the basis for prepara-tion of the Activity Schedule that will specify Activities in operational detail.

5.4.2. Step 2 – Break Activities Down into Manageable Tasks The purpose of breaking Activities down into sub-activities or tasks, is to make them sufficiently simple to be organised and managed easily. The technique is to break an Activity down into its component sub-activities, and then to take each sub-activity and break it down into its component tasks. Each task can then be assigned to an individual, and becomes their short-term goal. The main skill is in getting the level of detail right. The most common mistake is to break the Activities down into too much detail. The breakdown should stop as soon as the planner has sufficient detail to estimate the time and resources required, and the person responsible for actually doing the work has sufficient instructions on what has to be done. This is where individual planning of tasks of project team members starts.

5.4.3. Step 3 – Clarify Sequence and Dependencies Once the Activities have been broken down into sufficient detail, they must be re-lated to each other to determine their: • sequence - in what order should related Activities be undertaken? • dependencies - is the Activity dependent on the start-up or completion of any

other Activity? This can best be described with an example. Building a house consists of a number of separate, but inter-related Activities: digging and laying the foundations; building the walls; installing the doors and windows; plastering the walls; constructing the roof; installing the plumbing. The sequence dictates that digging the foundations comes before building the walls; while dependencies include the fact that you can-not start installing doors and windows until the walls have reached a certain height; or you cannot finish plastering until the plumbing has been fully installed. Depend-encies may also occur between otherwise unrelated Activities that will be under-taken by the same person.

5.4.4. Step 4 – Estimate Start-up, Duration and Completion of Activities Specifying the timing means making a realistic estimate of the duration of each task, and then building it into the Activity Schedule to establish likely start-up and comple-tion dates. Often though it is not possible to estimate timing with complete confi-dence. To ensure that the estimates are at least realistic, those who have the nec-essary technical knowledge or experience should be consulted. Inaccuracy is a common mistake, usually resulting in an underestimate of the time required, and can arise for a number of reasons:

91


• omission of essential Activities and tasks • failure to allow sufficiently for interdependence of Activities • failure to allow for resource competition (i.e. scheduling the same person or piece

of equipment to do two or more things at once) • a desire to impress with the promise of rapid results

5.4.5. Step 5 – Summarise Scheduling of Main Activities Having specified the timing of the individual tasks that make up the main Activities, it is useful to provide an overall summary of the start-up, duration and completion of the main Activity itself.

5.4.6. Step 6 – Define Milestones Milestones provide the basis by which project implementation is monitored and managed. They are key events that provide a measure of progress and a target for the project team to aim at. The simplest milestones are the dates estimated for completion of each Activity – e.g. training needs assessment completed by January 200x.

5.4.7. Step 7 – Define Expertise When the tasks are known, it is possible to specify the type of expertise required. Often the available expertise is known in advance. Nonetheless, this provides a good opportunity to check whether the action plan is feasible given the human re-sources available.

5.4.8. Step 8 – Allocate Tasks Among Team This involves more than just saying who does what. With task allocation comes re-sponsibility for achievement of milestones. In other words, it is a means to define each team member’s accountability - to the project manager and to other team members.

Ensuring ac-countability

Task allocation must therefore take into account the capability, skills and experience of each member of the team. When delegating tasks to team members, it is impor-tant to ensure that they understand what is required of them. If not, the level of detail with which the relevant tasks are specified may have to be increased.

5.4.9. Step 9 – Estimate Time Required for Team Members Based upon experience, this step requires a realistic estimate of the time that will be required for each of the allocated tasks, and a check whether there are at least manageable overlaps between individual tasks of the team members. Having done this exercise for all project Activities, a review should be made to check again timing and sequencing of tasks and thus workload for each individual team member. The method shown for activity scheduling includes elements of the Critical Path Analysis, which is a common tool for operational planning. The “Critical Path” is the longest sequence of dependent Activities that lead to the completion of the plan. Any delay of a stage in the critical path will delay the completion of the whole plan unless future sequential Activities are speeded up. The method can equally be ap-plied in aid projects to calculate the minimum length of time in which the project can be completed, and which Activities should be prioritised to complete by that date. The Critical Path Analysis is thus an effective method of planning and analysing complex projects helping to focus on the essential Activities to which attention and resources should be devoted. It gives an effective basis for the scheduling and monitoring of progress.

Using the Critical Path Method

92


Table 29: Overview on Critical Path Analysis

Critical Path Analysis - First Draft

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. High Level Analysis

2. Selection of Hardw are Platform

3. Installation and Commissioning of Hardw are

4. Analysis of Core Modules

5. Analysis of Supporting Modules

6. Programming of Core Modules

7. Programming of Supporting Modules

8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules

9. QA Supporting Modules

10. Core Module Training

11. Develop Accounting Reporting

12. Develop Management Reporting

13. Develop MIS

14. Detailed Training

15. Documentation

Week

Principle: Distinguishing sequential and parallel activities The essential concept behind the Critical Path Analysis is that some activities are dependent on other activities being completed first. These dependent activities need to be completed in a sequence, with each activity being more-or-less completed be-fore the next activity can begin. Dependent activities are also called ‘sequential’ ac-tivities. Other activities are not dependent on completion of any other tasks, or may be done at any time before or after a particular stage is reached. These are non-dependent or ‘parallel’ tasks. Steps to follow 1. List all activities: Show the earliest start date, estimate duration and whether the

tasks are parallel or sequential. If the tasks are sequential, show what they de-pend on.

2. Head up graph paper with the days or weeks through to task completion 3. Plot the tasks on the graph paper: Start on the earliest start dates, and mark on

the duration. Show the tasks as arrows, and the ends of tasks with dots. Above the tasks arrows, mark the time taken to complete the task. Once you have plot-ted the tasks, plot in lines to show dependencies. This will produce a draft analysis like the one below:

4. Schedule Activities: Take the draft analysis, and use it to schedule the actions in the plan, in such a way that sequential actions are carried out in the required se-quence. Parallel actions should be scheduled so that they do not interfere with sequential actions on the critical path, if possible. While scheduling, bear in mind the resources you have available, and allow some time in the schedule for hold-ups, over-runs, failures in delivery, etc.

5. Presenting the Analysis: The final stage in this process is to prepare a clean final copy of the analysis. This should combine the draft analysis with the scheduling and analysis of resources to show when you anticipate that task should start and finish. Gantt Charts are a presentation format. A redrawn and scheduled version of the analysis is shown below, in the format of a Gantt chart:

93


Critica l Pa th Ana lysis - Sche dule Activitie s

Hstfna

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. High level analys is

4. Analys is of Core Modules

6. Programming of Core Modules

8. Quality A ssurance, Core Modules

10. Core Module Training (1 day )

5. A nalys is of Supporting Modules

7. Programming of Supporting Modules

9. QA Supporting Modules

14. Detailed Training

11. Develop A ccounting Reports

12. Develop Management Reporting

13. Develop MIS

2. Selec tion of Hardw are Platf orm

3. Ins tallation and Commiss ioning of Hardw are

15. Documentation

C rit ical Path A ction No n-C r it ical Path A ction

W eek

(1)

(2)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(2)

(1 day)

(2) (2)

ere time is marked out in columns across the chart, with individual tasks repre-ented as arrows terminating at dots. The length and positions of the arrows show he start date and duration of the tasks. You may prefer to show tasks in pure Gantt ormat, as solid bars rather than arrows terminating in dots. Similarly you may prefer ot to show the linkages between related tasks - this is a matter of personal taste nd personal convention.

Source: Mindtools

94


Figure 41: Preparing an Activity Schedule

ESTABLISHM ENT OF P LANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT

















2. BREAK DOWN MAIN ACTIVITIES INTO

MANAGEABLE TASKS

4. ESTIMATE START-UP, DURATION & COMPLETION OF ACTIVITIES

5. SUMMARISE SCHEDULING OF MAIN ACTIVITIES

3. CLARIFY SEQUENCE & DEPENDENCIES

6. DEFINE MILESTONES1. LIST MAIN ACTIVITIES

FROM LOGFRAME



L 10

L 10

L S 1 3

L S 8 16

L S 20 20

L 2

L L L 10 10 10

L L L 40 40 40

L S S S 10 5 5 5

L S S S 5 10 10 10

KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65



7. DEFINE EXPERTISE REQUIRED

8. ALLOCATE TASKS AMONG

TEAM

9. ESTIMATE TIME REQUIRED

ESTABLISHM ENT OF P LANNING UNIT, M INISTRY OF TRANSPORT

















2. BREAK DOWN MAIN ACTIVITIES INTO

MANAGEABLE TASKS

4. ESTIMATE START-UP, DURATION & COMPLETION OF ACTIVITIES

5. SUMMARISE SCHEDULING OF MAIN ACTIVITIES

3. CLARIFY SEQUENCE & DEPENDENCIES

6. DEFINE MILESTONES1. LIST MAIN ACTIVITIES

FROM LOGFRAME



L 10

L 10

L S 1 3

L S 8 16

L S 20 20

L 2

L L L 10 10 10

L L L 40 40 40

L S S S 10 5 5 5

L S S S 5 10 10 10

KEY Total 56 49 65 65 65



7. DEFINE EXPERTISE REQUIRED

8. ALLOCATE TASKS AMONG

TEAM

9. ESTIMATE TIME REQUIRED

95


5.5. Preparing Resource Schedules Cost estimates must be based on careful and thorough budgeting. They will have significant influence over the investment decision at project appraisal and subse-quently on the smooth implementation of the project if the go-ahead is given. Again, the list of Activities should be copied into an Resource Schedule pro-forma. Each Activity should then be used as a checklist to ensure that all necessary Means under that Activity are provided for. Budgeting of management activities should not be for-gotten at this stage.

5.5.1. A Checklist for Specifying Means and Scheduling Cost Once the Activities have been entered into the schedule, the Means necessary to undertake the Activities must be specified. As there will be a need to aggregate or summarise the cost information, the Means should be allocated to established cost categories. For example, in Figure 42 the activity of establishing a Planning Unit requires Equipment and Salaries and Allowances. The Units, Quantity Per Period, and esti-mated Unit Cost should then be specified. If entered on a spreadsheet, Cost per Pe-riod and Total Project Cost can be calculated using simple formulae. Project costings should allow the allocation of cost between the different funding sources so that each party is clear about their respective contributions. The code for Funding Source can then be used to sort all cost and to determine respective totals. Those providing funding for the project are likely to have cost codes for each estab-lished cost category. By specifying the Cost Code, cost can again be sorted to de-termine total cost by cost category. It is now possible to schedule cost per planning period using simple formulae to multi-ply the annual quantity by the unit cost. Once Total Cost have been calculated, it is im-portant to remember that the implementing agency will be required to meet any recur-rent cost of maintaining service provision beyond the life of the project. Recurrent Cost may be covered (fully or partly) through increased revenue that has been generated through project Activities. Whether or not this is the case, it is important that the net re-current cost implications of the project are clearly specified so that the future impact on the implementing agency’s budget can be determined.

96


Figure 42: Preparing a Resource Schedule

ES TABLIS HM ENT OF A P LANNING UNIT, M INIS TRY OF TRANS P ORT


1s t qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group

ACTIV ITIES1.1 Esta blish P la nning Unit


SALARIES & ALLOW ANCES (LOCAL)Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B /2.1Office s taff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B /2.1

ETC..........

TOTAL PER QUARTER

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

4. SPECIFY UNITS

5. SPECIFY QUANTITY

6. ESTIMATE UNIT COST

7. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOUR

8. ALLOCATE CO

1. COPY ACTIVITIES FROM ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

2. SPECIFY INPUTS3. PUT INPUTS INTO COST CATEGORIES

Total per year and funding source

P roje ct Tota l

Annual recurrent

1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Tota l cos tsEC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG

2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000 500 - - - 500 - - 500

3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000

800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200 300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200

5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400

Costs per planning period

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��RCE

OST CODES 10. CALCULATE TOTAL9. SCHEDULE COSTS PER PLANNING PERIOD

11. ESTIMATE RECURRENT COSTS

ES TABLIS HM ENT OF A P LANNING UNIT, M INIS TRY OF TRANS P ORT


1s t qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr group

ACTIV ITIES1.1 Esta blish P la nning Unit


SALARIES & ALLOW ANCES (LOCAL)Counterparts pm 4 4 4 4 200 Gvt. B /2.1Office s taff pm 3 3 3 3 100 Gvt. B /2.1

ETC..........

TOTAL PER QUARTER

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

4. SPECIFY UNITS

5. SPECIFY QUANTITY

6. ESTIMATE UNIT COST

7. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOUR

8. ALLOCATE CO

1. COPY ACTIVITIES FROM ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

2. SPECIFY INPUTS3. PUT INPUTS INTO COST CATEGORIES

Total per year and funding source

P roje ct Tota l

Annual recurrent

1st qtr 2nd qtr 3rd qtr 4th qtr Tota l cos tsEC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG EC Gvt. TG

2.000 2.000 - - 4.000 - - 4.000 500 - - - 500 - - 500

3.000 - - - 3.000 - - 3.000

800 800 800 800 - 3.200 - 3.200 3.200 300 300 300 300 - 1.200 - 1.200 1.200

5.500 1.100 - 2.000 1.100 - - 1.100 - - 1.100 - 7.500 4.400 - 11.900 4.400

Costs per planning period

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��RCE

OST CODES 10. CALCULATE TOTAL9. SCHEDULE COSTS PER PLANNING PERIOD

11. ESTIMATE RECURRENT COSTS

97

European Commission – EuropeAid Handbook Project Cycle Management

5.6. Glossary Activities The actions (and Means) that have to be taken / provided to produce the Re-

sults. They summarise what will be undertaken by the project. Activity Schedule A Gantt chart, a graphic representation similar to a bar chart, setting out the

timing, sequence and duration of project Activities. It can also be used to iden-tify milestones for monitoring progress, and to assign responsibility for achievement of milestones.

Analysis of Objectives Identification and verification of future desired benefits to which the beneficiar-ies attach priority. The output of an analysis of objectives is the objective tree / hierarchy of objectives.

Analysis of Strategies Critical assessment of the alternative ways of achieving objectives, and selec-tion of one or more for inclusion in the proposed project.

Appraisal Analysis of a proposed project to determine its merit and acceptability in accor-dance with established criteria. This is the final step before a project is agreed for financing. It checks that the project is feasible against the situation on the ground that the objectives set remain appropriate and that cost are reasonable. Term often synonymously used: Feasibility study / Ex-ante evaluation.

Appraisal Phase The third phase in the project cycle. It involves the establishment of the details of the project on the basis of a feasibility study, followed by an examination by EC staff to assess the project’s merits and consistency with sectoral policies.

Assumptions External factors which could affect the progress or success of the project, but over which the project manager has no direct control. They form the 4th column of the logframe, and are formulated in a positive way, e.g.: “Reform of penal procedures successfully implemented”.

Bar Chart See “Gantt Chart”. Beneficiaries Are those who benefit in whatever way from the implementation of the project.

Distinction may be made between: (a) Target group(s): the group / entity who will be immediately positively af-

fected by the project at the Project Purpose level; (b) Final beneficiaries: those who benefit from the project in the long term at

the level of the society or sector at large, e.g. “children” due to increased spending on health and education, or “consumers” due to improved agricul-tural production and marketing.

Commission The European Commission. Commitment A commitment is a formal decision taken by the Commission to set aside a cer-

tain amount of money for a particular purpose. No expenditure can be incurred in excess of the authorised commitment.

Contractor The public or private organisation, consortium or individual with whom the con-tracting authority enters into a contract. The firm, individual or consortium to which a contract is awarded.

Cost Cost are the translation into financial terms of all the identified resources (“Means”).

Country Strategy Pa-pers

Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) are an instrument for guiding, managing and reviewing EC assistance programmes. The purpose of CSPs is to provide a framework for EU assistance programmes based on EU / EC objectives, the Partner Country government policy agenda, an analysis of the partner country’s situation, and the activities of other major partners. CSPs are drawn up for all ACP, MEDA (except Cyprus, Malta and Turkey) and ALA countries.

Country Support Strat-egy

Term used as a synonym for Country Strategy Papers (CSP).

98


DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

Delegation The diplomatic office representing the European Commission accredited to countries or international institutions at the level of an Embassy. The Head of Delegation is often called Delegate or Ambassador.

Effectiveness The contribution made by Results to achievement of the Project Purpose, and how Assumptions have affected project achievements.

Efficiency The fact that the Results were obtained at reasonable cost, i.e. how well Means and Activities were converted into Results, and the quality of the Results achieved.

European Commis-sion

The executive arm of the European Union. It initiates European Union policy and implements programmes and policies established by the EU legislative and budgetary authorities.

Evaluation A periodic assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and relevance of a project in the context of stated objectives. It is usually un-dertaken as an independent examination of the background, objectives, Re-sults, Activities and Means deployed, with a view to drawing lessons that may guide future decision-making.

Evaluation Phase The sixth and final phase of the project cycle during which the project is exam-ined against its objectives, and lessons are used to influence future actions.

Feasibility Addresses the issue whether the project objectives can be really achieved. Feasibility Study A feasibility study, conducted during the Appraisal phase, verifies whether the

proposed project is well-founded, and is likely to meet the needs of its intended target groups / beneficiaries. The study should design the project in full opera-tional detail, taking account of all policy, technical, economic, financial, institu-tional, management, environmental, socio-cultural, gender-related aspects. The study will provide the European Commission and partner government with suf-ficient information to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the pro-posed project for further financing.

Financing Agreement / Memorandum

The document signed between the European Commission and the partner country or countries subsequent to a financing decision. It includes a descrip-tion of the particular project or programme to be funded. It represents the for-mal commitment of the European Union and the partner country to finance the measures described.

Financing Memoran-dum

See “Financing Agreement”.

Financing Phase The fourth phase of the project cycle during which projects are approved for financing.

Financing Proposal Financing proposals are draft documents, submitted by the Commission’s ser-vices to the relevant Financing Committee for opinion and to the Commission for decision. They describe the general background, nature, scope and objec-tives and modalities of measures proposed and indicate the funding foreseen. After having received the favourable opinion of the Financing Committee, they are the subject of the Commission’s subsequent financing decision and of the Financing Agreement which is signed with the respective partner country.

Gantt Chart A method of presenting information graphically, often used for activity schedul-ing. Similar to a bar chart.

99


Gender The social differences that are ascribed to and learned by women and men, and that vary over time and from one society or group to another. Gender dif-fers from sex, which refers to the biologically determined differences between women and men.

Gender Analysis EU policy on gender mainstreaming in development co-operation requires the integration of gender analysis at macro, meso and micro levels, throughout the project cycle. A gender analysis allows the identification and integration of the dynamics of change in a given situation, as well as the monitoring of their evo-lution, particularly in relation to the disparities between women and men. A gender analysis includes attention to: the different roles (productive, reproduc-tive, decision-making) of women and men; their differential access to and use of resources and their specific needs, interests and problems; and the barriers to the full and equitable participation of women and men in project Activities and to equity between women and men in the benefits obtained.

Gender Equality The promotion of equality between women and men in relation to their access to social and economic infrastructures and services and to the benefits of de-velopment is vital. The objective is reduced disparities between women and men, including in health and education, in employment and economic activity, and in decision-making at all levels. All programmes and projects should ac-tively contribute to reducing gender disparities in their area of intervention.

Hierarchy of Objec-tives

A diagrammatic representation of the proposed project interventions planned logically, following a problem analysis, and showing a means to ends relation-ship. Synonym: Objectives tree.

Identification Phase The second phase of the project cycle. It involves the initial elaboration of the project idea in terms of objectives, Results and Activities, with a view to deter-mining whether or not to go ahead with a feasibility study.

Impact The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider sectoral objectives summarised in the project’s Overall Objectives, and on the achievement of the overarching policy objectives of the EC.

Impact Indicators See “Development Indicators” Implementation Phase The fifth phase of the project cycle during which the project is implemented,

and progress towards achieving objectives is monitored. Inception Period The period from project start-up until the writing of the inception report, usually

two to three months. Inception Report The first report produced at the end of the inception period, which updates the

project design and or the terms of reference and sets the work plan for the rest of the project.

Indicative Pro-grammes

These are prepared by the European Commission in co-ordination with partner country governments. They provide general guidelines and principles for co-operation with the European Union. They specify focal sectors and themes within a country or region and may set out a number of project ideas.

Indicators See “Objectively Verifiable Indicators” and “Development Indicators”. Inputs See “Means”. Integrated Approach The continuous examination of a project throughout all the phases of the pro-

ject cycle, to ensure that issues of relevance, feasibility and sustainability re-main in focus.

Intervention Logic The strategy underlying the project. It is the narrative description of the project at each of the four levels of the ‘hierarchy of objectives’ used in the logframe.

Logframe The matrix in which a project’s Intervention Logic, Assumptions, Objectively Verifiable Indicators and Sources of Verification are presented.

100


Logical Framework Approach (LFA)

A methodology for planning, managing and evaluating programmes and pro-jects, involving stakeholder analysis, problem analysis, analysis of objectives, analysis of strategies, preparation of the logframe matrix and Activity and Re-source Schedules.

Means The boxes “Means” and “Cost” replace OVIs and SOV at the level of Activities. Means are physical and non-physical resources (often referred to as “Inputs”) that are necessary to carry out the planned Activities and manage the project. A distinction can be drawn between human resources and material resources.

Milestones A type of OVI providing indications for short and medium-term objectives (usu-ally Activities), which facilitate measurement of achievements throughout a pro-ject rather than just at the end. They also indicate times when decisions should be made or action should be finished.

Monitoring The systematic and continuous collecting, analysis and using of information for the purpose of management and decision-making.

Objective Description of the aim of a project or programme. In its generic sense it refers to Activities, Results, Project Purpose and Overall Objectives.

Objective Tree A diagrammatic representation of the situation in the future once problems have been remedied, following a problem analysis, and showing a means to ends relationship.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)

Measurable indicators that will show whether or not objectives have been achieved at the three highest levels of the logframe. OVIs provide the basis for designing an appropriate monitoring system.

Outcome Indicators See Development Indicators Output Indicators See Development Indicators Overall Objectives They explain why the project is important to society, in terms of the longer-term

benefits to final beneficiaries and the wider benefits to other groups. They also help to show how the programme fits into the regional / sectoral policies of the government / organisations concerned and of the EC, as well as into the over-arching policy objectives of EC co-operation. The Overall Objectives will not be achieved by the project alone (it will only provide a contribution to the achieve-ment of the Overall Objectives), but will require the contributions of other pro-grammes and projects as well.

Development Indica-tors

The OECD, the United Nations and the World Bank have agreed to focus on a series of key goals in partnership with developing countries. These goals have been endorsed by major international conferences. A system for tracking pro-gress has also been agreed. A core set of indicators will be used - at a global level - to monitor performance and adjust development strategies as required. In terms of development policy, the following terminology is applied for indica-tors: • Input indicators measure the financial, administrative and regulatory re-

sources provided by the Government and donors. It is necessary to estab-lish a link between the resources used and the results achieved in order to assess the efficiency of the actions carried out. E.g.: Share of the budget devoted to education expenditure, abolition of compulsory school uniforms

• Output indicators measure the immediate and concrete consequences of the measures taken and resources used: E.g.: Number of schools built, number of teachers trained

• Outcome indicators measure the short-term results at the level of benefici-aries. The term ‘results indicators’ is used as well. E.g.: school enrolment, percentage of girls among the children entering in first year of primary school

• Impact indicators measure the long-term consequences of the outcomes. They measure the general objectives in terms of national development and poverty reduction. E.g.: Literacy rates

101

http://www1.oecd.org/dac/indicators/htm/goals.htm


Pre-conditions Conditions that have to be met before the project can commence, i.e. start with Activities. Pre-conditions (if any) are attached to the provision of aid.

Pre-feasibility Study The pre-feasibility study, conducted during the identification phase, ensures that all problems are identified and alternative solutions are appraised, and se-lects a preferred alternative on the basis of Quality Factors. The study will pro-vide the European Commission and partner government with sufficient informa-tion to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for further appraisal.

Problem Analysis A structured investigation of the negative aspects of a situation in order to es-tablish causes and their effects.

Problem Tree A diagrammatic representation of a negative situation, showing a cause-effect relationship.

Programme A series of projects with a common Overall Objective. Programming Phase The first phase of the project cycle during which the Indicative Programme is

prepared. See also “Indicative Programme”. Progress Report An interim report on progress of work on a project submitted by the project

management / contractor to the partner organisation and the Commission within a specific time frame. It includes sections on technical and financial per-formance. It is usually submitted quarterly.

Project A series of Activities with set objectives, designed to produce a specific out-come within a limited time frame.

Project Cycle The project cycle follows the life of a project from the initial idea through to its completion. It provides a structure to ensure that stakeholders are consulted, and defines the key decisions, information requirements and responsibilities at each phase so that informed decisions can be made at each phase in the life of a project. It draws on evaluation to build the lessons of experience into the de-sign of future programmes and projects.

Project Cycle Man-agement

A methodology for the preparation, implementation and evaluation of projects and programmes based on the integrated approach and the Logical Framework Approach.

Project Partners Those who implement the projects in the county (ministries, implementation agencies, etc.).

Project Purpose The central objective of the project. The Purpose should address the core prob-lem, and be defined in terms of sustainable benefits for the target group(s). The Purpose should also express the equitable benefits for women and men among the target group(s). There should only be one Project Purpose per project.

Quality Factors Criteria that are known to have had a significant impact on the sustainability of benefits generated by projects in the past, and which have to be taken into ac-count in the design and implementation of each project (previously: “Sustain-ability Criteria”): ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and fi-nancial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender, appropriate technology, envi-ronmental aspects, and institutional and management capacity.

Recurrent Cost Cost for operation and maintenance that will continue to be incurred after the implementation period of the project.

Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the real problems, needs and pri-orities of the intended target groups and beneficiaries that the project is sup-posed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operates.

Resource Schedule A breakdown of the project budget where Means and Cost are linked to Activi-ties, and detailed per time period selected.

102


Results The “products” of the Activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose of the project, namely a start of enjoyment of sustainable benefits for the target groups.

Risks See also “Assumptions”. External factors and events that could affect the pro-gress or success of the project, and that are not very likely to hold true. They are formulated in a negative way, e.g.: “Reform of penal procedures fails”.

Sources of Verifica-tion

They form the third column of the logframe and indicate where and in what form information on the achievement of the Overall Objectives, the Project Purpose and the Results can be found (described by the Objectively Verifiable Indica-tors).

Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder analysis involves the identification of all stakeholder groups likely to be affected (either positively or negatively) by the proposed intervention, the identification and analysis of their interests, problems, potentials, etc. The con-clusions of this analysis are then integrated into the project design.

Stakeholders Any individuals, groups of people, institutions or firms that may have a relation-ship with the project / programme are defined as stakeholders. They may – di-rectly or indirectly, positively or negatively – affect or be affected by the process and the outcomes of projects or programmes. Usually, different sub-groups have to be considered.

Start-up Period The period of project implementation immediately after the arrival of the con-tractor / technical assistance.

Sustainability The likelihood of a continuation in the stream of benefits produced by the pro-ject after the period of external support has ended.

Sustainability Criteria See “Quality Factors”. SWOT Analysis Analysis of an organisation’s Strengths and Weaknesses, and the Opportuni-

ties and Threats that it faces. A tool that can be used during all phases of the project cycle.

Target Group(s) The group / entity who will be positively affected by the project at the Project Purpose level.

Technical Assistance Specialists, consultants, trainers, advisers, etc. contracted for the transfer of know-how and skills and the creation and strengthening of institutions.

Terms of Reference Terms of Reference define the tasks required of a contractor and indicate pro-ject background and objectives, planned Activities, expected inputs and out-puts, budget, timetables and job descriptions.

Work plan The schedule that sets out the Activities and resources necessary to achieve a project’s Results and Purpose.

103


5.7. Useful References and Sites Topic Institution Address

Project Cycle Manage-ment:

General:

PCM Manual and Handbook EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/pcm.htm

PCM Guidelines (in English, French, German, Spanish)

GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pcmleit.htm

PCM Guidelines, M&E, etc. UNDP/GEF http://www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Operational_Strategy/operational_strategy.html

PCM, Monitoring, Evaluation Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

http://194.230.65.134/dezaweb2/home.asp

PCM for specific sectors:

Guidelines for Forest Sector Development Co-operation (Vol. I in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Ger-man; Vol. II in English and French)

EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/forestry_en.htm#guideline

Towards Sustainable Water Resource Management (Manual in English, French and Portuguese)

EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/descript/en/pub440.htm

Towards Sustainable Trans-port Infrastructure (Manual in English and French)

EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/transport/en/entc.htm

Monitoring & Evaluation:

Monitoring Guidelines (in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese)

GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/monitoring.htm

Monitoring & Evaluation IADB http://www.iadb.org/cont/evo/evo_eng.htm

M&E links GEF http://www.undp.org/gef/m&e/links.htm

Guidelines for progress con-trol (in English, French, German, Portuguese)

GTZ http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pfk.htm

Evaluation Guidelines EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/methods/index.htm

Indicators:

International development goals: Indicators of progress

OECD www.oecd.org/dac/indicators

IMF www.paris21.org/betterworld and related OECD Observer: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/sectionfront.php/locale/70

World Development Indica-tors

World Bank www.worldbank.org/data

104



http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pcmleit.htm

http://www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Operational_Strategy/operational_strategy.html

http://www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Operational_Strategy/operational_strategy.html

http://194.230.65.134/dezaweb2/home.asp

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/forestry_en.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/forestry_en.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/descript/en/pub440.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/descript/en/pub440.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/transport/en/entc.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/transport/en/entc.htm

http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/monitoring.htm

http://www.iadb.org/cont/evo/evo_eng.htm

http://www.undp.org/gef/m&e/links.htm

http://www.gtz.de/pcm/deutsch/pfk.htm



http://www.oecd.org/dac/indicators

http://www.paris21.org/betterworld

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/sectionfront.php/locale/70

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/sectionfront.php/locale/70

http://www.worldbank.org/data


Topic Institution Address

Goals and indicators UN (United Na-tions Develop-ment Assistance Framework (UN-DAF))

www.cca-undaf.org

Indicators for sustainable development

Consultative Group on Sus-tainable Devel-opment Indica-tors

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/cgsdi/dashboard.htm

Gender-related indicators UNDP Gender in Development Programme (GIDP)

http://www.sdnp.undp.org/gender/datastats/

Cross-cutting issues:

Environmental Assessment (manual)

EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/ea/index.htm

Social, Human and Cultural Development and gender issues

EC http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/social/index_en.htm

Gender Equality EU/DG Employ-ment (with nu-merous links)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/links_en.html

UNIFEM (United Nations Devel-opment Fund for Women)

http://www.undp.org/unifem/

UNIFEM Pro-gress of the world women’s report

http://www.unifem.undp.org/progressww/

UNIFEM Regio-nal Programme

http://www.unifem.undp.org/regional.htm

UNDP Gender in Development Programme (GIDP)

http://www.undp.org/gender/ (resource book; con-cepts and tools are to be found under ‘gender analysis’ within the ‘gender mainstreaming’ information pack)

ELDIS (special-ised portal)

http://www.ids.ac.uk/eldis/gender/Gender.htm

BRIDGE Publica-tions

http://www.ids.ac.uk/bridge//bripub.html

WIDE (network-ing organisation with a focus on developments related to Europe)

http://www.eurosur.org/wide/porteng.htm

105

http://www.cca-undaf.org/

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/cgsdi/dashboard.htm

http://www.sdnp.undp.org/gender/datastats/

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/ea/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/ea/index.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/social/index_en.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/social/index_en.htm



http://www.undp.org/unifem

http://www.unifem.undp.org/progressww/

http://www.unifem.undp.org/regional.htm

http://www.undp.org/gender/

http://www.ids.ac.uk/eldis/gender/Gender.htm

http://www.ids.ac.uk/bridge//bripub.html

http://www.eurosur.org/wide/porteng.htm